Sexual Assault, Domestic Assault, Criminal Harassment, Threaten Death/Harm, Assault, and other Violent Crimes

Regina v. S.G. (2017),
Charges of domestic assault, threaten death, obstruct justice, intimidate a justice participant, and fail to comply x 2, dismissed after a four day trial. S.G. was alleged to have assaulted his daughter in law, and threatened to kill her. After he was charged, the complainant attended police again and alleged that S.G. re-attended the home and not only communicated with her but attempted to have her change her story to police by threatening her with further violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. After carefully scrutinizing the complainant’s evidence, Joseph Neuberger, obtained statements from S.G.’s surety and neighbours to show that at no time did S.G. return to the home where his daughter was living and obtained medical evidence about physical restrictions that S.G. had which were inconsistent with the manner in which the complainant alleged the assault occurred. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the complainant extensively and established material inconsistencies not only between her two statements but also within her in court testimony. Many of the inconsistencies were not supportive of the allegations and significantly damaged her reliability and credibility. During the second phase of the trial, upon careful consideration of the evidence, the Crown attorney directed the judge that there was no longer any prospect of conviction and S.G. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. J.N. (2017),
Charges of domestic assault and mischief under withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The client and the complainant have been married for a number of years with five children. During a heated argument about ending the marriage, the police were called an allegations of domestic violence were made. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained and after reviewing the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of text messages that suggested, prior to the argument, that the complainant was particularly angry at the suggestion that J.N. would want to end the marriage and was fore warning about possible charges. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the bail was varied so that J.N. could return home and the complainant and J.N. were allowed to attend marital counselling. After an extensive period of counselling the Crown agreed to withdrawn the charges in favour of a common law peace bond..

Regina v. P.L. (2017),
Client found not guilty of charges of Internet Luring x 2, and Obtaining the Sexual Services of a Person Under 18 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged in a York Regional Police project called "Raphael" designed to catch individuals who are attempting to obtain services of minors. The client had messaged a lady who advertised on the Backpages website and unbeknownst to the client the person at the other end was an undercover police officer. The main issue was given the context of the communications, the timing and sequencing of messages, did the client take reasonable steps to ascertain the person purported to be the escort was older than 18. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established through cross-examination at trial that P.L. had in fact inquired about age and because of the overlap in messaging, P.L. had the reasonable belief that the alleged escort was actually 25, when in fact the undercover officer was referring to an amount of money in his messages but without the use of a dollar sign. Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized the messages and obtained a forensic analysis of the client’s phone to establish timing of the messages. A comprehensive book of authorities was filed at trial by the defence and it was clear to the judge that P.L.’s belief that the person he thought he was communicating with was 25 and not underage, and thus he had taken "reasonable steps" to ascertain the age and was satisfied that she was 25 years of age. This was a very technical defence based on the evidence and case law, BUT P.L. was sincere and honest in his belief and was found not guilty at trial.

Regina v. C.C.S. (2017),
Charges of Kidnapping x 2, Extortion, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with Weapon, Point Firearm, Criminal Organizations, stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice at the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have kidnapped and assaulted a Chinese Visa student as a result of an issue regarding a young lady and for the purposes of extortion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained video surveillance from the various locations showing the complainant was not under the control of the client and in fact appeared to be interacting in a friendly manner. The alleged injuries as reflected in the medical records were not consistent with the alleged beatings. Further, Joseph Neuberger interviewed several defence witnesses and provided the evidence to the Crown. The complainant left Canada and the Crown sought mutual legal assistance from the People's Republic of China but the defence challenged the use of video testimony as the laws of China were to apply to the preliminary hearing. The defence was successful on a motion and the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. A.P. (2017),
Charges of Assault x 3, Weapons Dangerous x 3, Threaten Death x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn on the first day of trial. The client was charged with a number of domestic related offences. The complainant brought the allegations after deciding to separate from A.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger raised significant inconsistencies between the statement of the complainant, her daughter's statement, and Affidavit material filed in the Family Court Proceeding. Cross examination focused on these inconsistencies. After a break in the trial the Crown withdrew the charges as a result of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. S.P. (2017),
Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault x 2, and Threaten Death (Domestic), dismissed after seven day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at 1000 Finch Avenue West. S.P. was alleged to have sexually and physically abused his niece from the moment she arrived in Canada from March of 2012 up to January 7, 2015. The complainant had medical records demonstrating that she sustained injuries including a broken nose, bruising and puncture wounds. The medical records were from her visit to hospital at the time S.P. was arrested. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained as the lead defence counsel and Mariya Protsenko as the second defence lawyer on the file. Careful review and scrutiny of the complainant’s statement and medical records was conducted along with an extensive defence investigation. A private investigator was hired who interviewed three independent witnesses that testified at trial as to observing the complainant fall on January 7th and sustain certain injuries and another witness as to the compliant having confided in her that the complainant wanted to break up S.P.’s marriage so that she could marry him and obtain immigration status in Canada. At trial, the complainant’s evidence became far more detailed and extensive than in her statement to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant over a two day period putting to her numerous inconsistencies, omissions and improbable assertions that undermined her credibility. Joseph Neuberger utilized the medical records to also undermine the complainant’s evidence about the alleged physical and sexual abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert in order to assert in cross-examination that the medical records proffered by the Crown were inconsistent with the evidence of the alleged abuse. Further, the defence marshalled the theory that the complainant lied about the allegations to protect her secret agenda that had been discovered by S.P. on January 7th and was to be exposed to her family. After extensive a detailed cross-examination of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the defence called three independent witnesses and then rested its case. The Court determined that the complainant was not credible or reliable and thus found S.P. not guilty of all charges.

R. v. R.R. (2017),
After a trial lasting over 3 years, with numerous civilian and police witnesses being called, client acquitted of several charges in the Ontario Court of Justice, including assaulting peace officer and assault with a weapon. Client was charged with several offences after an incident occurred in an apartment building in Toronto, which ultimately resulted in the client being shot 5 times with a C-8 assault rifle by police. Extensive cross-examination of all witnesses revealed inconsistencies in the evidence which resulted in all charges being dismissed.

R. v. W.C. (2016),
Client acquitted of 2 counts of sexual assault and forcible confinement relating to two different complainants, in two separate incidents that occurred at a work party. Both complainants were extensively cross-examined by lawyer Stacey Nichols, revealing serious inconsistencies in their stories which resulted in the client being acquitted of all charges in the Superior Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence witnesses were also called by Ms. Nichols which contradicted both Complainant’s version of events.

Regina v. M.N. (2016),
Client found not guilty of Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Utter Death Threats, Point Firearm, and Possession of Firearm, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. M.N. was alleged to have threatened and assaulted his ex-wife over an alleged dispute regarding their son. M.N. and the complainant had been divorced for several years but were still sharing custody of their young son. Over the course of a few months, tensions got heated regarding custody and child support issues. The complainant alleged that on Mother’s Day M.N. attended her apartment building and waited for her to return from work. As she was walking to the apartment at approximately 8:00 p.m. she alleged that M.N. got out of his car and pushed her to the corner of the building and put a gun to her head, threatening to kill her unless she provided him with the baby bonus cheques. M.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko. After a detailed interview of the client and careful scrutiny of the statement of the complainant and other evidence, the defence found that within several days of the charges the complainant filed in Family Court for sole custody and used the allegations as a reason for sole custody. In fact, arguments had occurred prior to the date of the alleged offence wherein M.N. had suggested that their son would be better off living with him and his family because the complainant was working long hours and travelling extensively. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents and used a number of the documents in cross examination of the complainant. Further, at trial, evidence of the complainant suggested that the event took well over 10 minutes with extensive details of how the event unfolded. However, the building video surveillance showed M.N. exiting his car, walking up to the complainant, then going out of range, and coming back to his car with a duration of less than 60 seconds. In cross examination, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to draw out the alleged details from the complainant and then put to the complainant the actual duration of the surveillance. Further, material inconsistencies arose during cross-examination that undermined her credibility. M.N. testified in his own defence and denied the allegations. After a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court acquitted M.N. of all charges.
To Read More

Regina v. X.L. (2016),
Charges of Utter Death Threats x 4 withdrawn prior to trial. The complainant was in a bitter custody dispute with her former husband. The day prior to the alleged threatening conduct, her father passed away. Due to a verbal argument in which a threat was made about obtaining sole custody, the complainant allegedly uttered a number of threats. Although the threats were actually uttered, given the history, and the circumstances, there was little objective reality to the complainant actually meaning to carry through any of the threats. The client attended therapy sessions and did very well in therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the report, numerous character letters and negotiated a withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. I.Z. (2016),
Charges of Firearms Trafficking, Careless Storage of a Firearm, Weapons Dangerous and Possession of Overcapacity Magazines all withdrawn just prior to trial. I.Z.’s home was searched pursuant to a Warrant issued on the primary basis of a confidential source’s information. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, reviewed the Warrant, and the Information to Obtain, and sought source material. It was obvious very little was done by police to confirm the C.I.’s information. In fact, surveillance of I.Z. yielded nothing of probative value although the Justice issued the Warrant. Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional Challenge alleging a section 8 Search and Seizure breach such that the Warrant was deficient and provided insufficient grounds for a search. Just prior to trial, the crown conceded that the Warrant was thin and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the charges. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.O. (2016),
Charges of Mischief, Domestic Assault, Theatening, Breach of Bail, Mischief to Data and Obstruct all withdrawn prior to commencement of the trial. P.O. who was charged with domestic allegations by his wife while he was on bail for a Refuse Roadside Sample for which she was the one who called police, was alleged to have communicated with her after being charged and the complainant alleged a historical assault, a threat to kill her and other allegations regarding their jointly owned business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the complainant fabricated the allegations because P.O. had filed for divorce and for her to gain an economic advantage in the divorce. Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic technology expert to show there was no mischief to data and interference with the complainant's business. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.I. (2016),
Client found not guilty of a charge of Sexual Assault after five day trial in the Superior Court in Barrie. D.I. was invited to a party in Barrie at a young lady's home whom he met via Plenty of Fish dating site. The party became extremely large and out of control. D.I. was drinking as everyone at the party was intoxicated and using marijuana. The complainant met up with the client during the evening and took shots from his bottle. At some point, the two went to D.I.'s car and sexual intercourse took place. As D.I. was exiting the car, he was pulling up his pants and a police officer had arrived and noticed D.I. D.I. appeared highly intoxicated and the officer thought he was going to attempt to drive. When he looked into the car, the officer found the complainant passed out in the car. Several police and paramedics attempted to wake up the complainant but she was unresponsive. She was removed from the car, place on a stretcher and taken to hospital. D.I. was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown pursued the prosecution on two grounds. First, that the complainant was heavily intoxicated and D.I. knew she was heavily intoxicated. Her blood alcohol readings were between 254 and 295 mg per 100 millilitres of blood. A very high level. Thus the Crown argued that at such a high level of intoxication she lacked the "capacity" to consent to sexual activity and D.I. knew this or was wilfully blind that he lacked consent. The second ground was that the complainant must have passed out during sexual contact in the car and thus D.I. no longer had consent as per the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Regina v. J.R.. In addition, the Crown relied on an Ontario Court of Justice decision wherein the Court stated that because the complainant in that case was passed out and was unresponsive, there was clear evidence that she lacked the capacity to consent.

Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined all Crown witnesses as to their observations of the complainant and showed that all Crown witnesses were unreliable. However, the complainant, under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, admitted that she has been drinking excessively for several months leading up to the date of the party. In fact, the complainant drank four to five times per week at least 375 ml of rum per night and when drunk was a heavy sleeper. The complainant admitted to being an experienced drinker who developed a high level of tolerance. During the party, she admitted to be a social butterfly and being able to socialize, talk, walk and have fun. That the alcohol helped her be more social and she enjoyed herself. However, after a point of drinking she had no memory of the events. Under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger she admitted that she cannot remember if she consented to sexual contact due to her memory loss.

An expert toxicologist testified for the Crown. The toxicologist testified at to the blood alcohol levels and the general effects of high levels of alcohol. Under cross-examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the expert agreed that the pattern of drinking of the complainant is indicative of a "heavy" drinker and she would not doubt have a higher degree of tolerance. It would be no surprise that she could be functional even while at such a high level of intoxication. More importantly, the expert agreed that just because the complainant was found to be passed out in the car and not responding to police and paramedics, thus in a deep sleep, it does not mean that the complainant could not have been functional 10, 12, 13 or even 15 minutes prior to being found passed out. This one important evidentiary point directly contradicts that finding of the court in the case the Crown was relying upon.

Stacey Nichols and Joseph Neuberger crossed other witnesses that showed the complainant was functional and in fact was outside the house having a cigarette minutes before the sexual contact, and appeared to smile and be "fine". In addition, although the Crown refused to call medical evidence, Joseph Neuberger extracted from the police witnesses that the complainant was released from hospital some two hours later without any treatment for alcohol poisoning or for any distress and that in fact by an hour or so after her arrival in hospital she was awake and talking to hospital staff. Thus, this evidence detracted from the argument that the complainant was in an exceptionally intoxicated state. Finally, the Crown tendered the video statement of the client.

Based on all the evidence, the Court found D.I. innocent and thus not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.

Case Comment: When dealing with sexual assault cases where the Crown alleges "incapacity to consent" it is extremely important to focus on the surrounding evidence and understand cognitive functioning and that consent to intimate contact requires a minimal level of cognitive functioning.

Regina v. J.E. (2016),
Charges of Assault, Threaten Death and Fail to Comply x 3 witdrawn after third judicial pre-trial. J.E. was alleged to have followed and ran off the road his former brother in law and assaulted him in addition to threatening him. The client was not supposed to have contact with the complainant. There was also an alleged independent witness who confirmed the complainant's story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger video recorded the route and then canvassed the surrounding businesses for any surveillance recordings. Further, after a defence investigation Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the independent witness was in fact a friend of the complainant. The defence recording showed that it was impossible for the client to have driven as alleged and ran the complainant off the road into a plaza. Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the defence evidence over the course of several judicial pre-trials and as a result the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. S.S. (2016),
Charges of domestic assault x 2, and threaten death x 2 withdrawn after commencement of trial. Mr. S.S. had married his wife in India and after about two years of living together in Canada, repeated arguments arose regarding his work and finances. S.S. was her sponsor and the complainant had asked for him to sponsor his family. S.S. decided to separate and prior to the formal separation, S.S. was charged with assault and threatening. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained emails and text messages showing that the complainant was having an extramarital affair. In addition, the joint savings account had numerous withdrawals. This material was provided by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown at the start of the trial and during the initial phase of cross-examination. Based upon discussions, the charges were withdrawn and the client signed a common law peace bond.

R v. J.C.B. (2016),
Charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and internet luring withdrawn after extensive defence investigation. The client had met the complainant through an online dating site. The communications between the two continued for two weeks prior to meeting up. The initial communications were via the dating site but the majority of communications were by text messaging. The two met, went on a date and eventually had an intimate encounter. J.C.B. shortly after stopped communicating with the complainant because of excessive messages and calls. J.C.B. also came learn that the complainant was 15 and not 20 as she had noted on her profile. A few weeks later the mother of the complainant saw some of the text messages and that J.C.B. was 29. Police were contacted and charges were laid. The complainant gave a statement that included allegations that she was forced to have intimate contact with J.C.B. and had been clear with him that she was under age. After the charges were laid the complainant started to communicate again with J.C.B. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Each text message was downloaded and saved as defence evidence. Also, Joseph Neuberger retained on the client's behalf a technology expert to retrieve all of the several hundred text messages between his client and the complainant. Defence Lawyer Joseph reviewed and organized the messages in groups establishing that the complainant led J.C.B. to believe she was older and experienced. Joseph Neuberger then hired a private investigator who pretended to be the client and messaged with the complainant on his phone. A strategy was employed to relate many of the past text messages in their ongoing communication to obtain admissions that she pretended to be older; that she pursued J.C.B. and not only consented to intimate contact, she had helped arrange the date and had talked about wanting to have intimate contact with J.C.B. After several hours of communications there was plenty of defence evidence to prove the complainant felt forced to give the statement she did because of her mother's pressure and that she did not tell the truth to police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a document brief of all of the messages and disclosed the material to the Crown prosecutor. As a result all charges were withdrawn as the client was innocent. The client is now considering civil action for damages to his reputation and for the legal fees he spent.

R. v. P.P. (2016),
Client charged with one count of assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. Mr. Navarrete obtained various defence evidence and provided it to the Crown including emails and recordings. After reviewing the material the Crown concluded they had no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charges.

R. v. M.L. (2016),
Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Scarborough. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office and convinced the Crown that upon successful completion of the PPAR program, the charges should be withdrawn. Mr. Navarrete provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community and also demonstrated possible mental health issues with the complainant including depression. Client completed the PAR program, entered into a common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. Y.C. (2016),
Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office. Mr. Navarrete convinced the Crown that upon successful completion of the PAR program, the charges should be withdrawn. Mr. Navarrete provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community and also demonstrated issues the Crown would face in successfully prosecuting the client at trial. Client completed the PAR program, entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. D.W. (2016),
Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Kitchener. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated to the Crown that the complainant could not be believed given the surveillance video. Mr. Navarrete also provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community. As a result, the Client completed the PAR program, entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. J.Z. (2016),
Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference at the Ontario Court of Justice at Old City Hall for an alleged incident that occurred on New Year’s Eve. The client was acquitted after a three day trial. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a thorough cross examination of the child complainant and was able to demonstrate that the version of events could not have occurred when compared to other Crown witnesses’ evidence.

Regina v. S.R. (2016),
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn at the Scarborough Courthouse prior to setting a date for trial. S.R. was in a relationship with the complainant for approximately four years. On the day of the alleged incident the two had been in an argument about financial issues as they attended Scarborough Town Centre. As a result of the argument, the two ended their relationship. However, during the argument S.R. was alleged to have yelled at the complainant and "elbowed" her. Two security guards who were in the vicinity heard the argument and allegedly witnessed the assault. S.R. was arrested for assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the exterior surveillance for the mall and nothing was shown on the video other than S.R. being in close proximity to the complainant. As a result, Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of the charge.

Regina v. H.L. (2016),
Charge of criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn at the Scarborough Courthouse prior to setting a trial date. Mr. H.L. and the complainant were in an eight month relationship. After a falling out, the two broke up but the complainant would not vacate the shared apartment that was leased by H.L. H.L. had allegedly made over 100 calls to the complainant over a period of 24 hours and allegedly banged on the door of the apartment. The complainant called police and H.L. was charged. Defence lawyer Mariya Protsenko reviewed the disclosure and conducted extensive pre-trials with the Crown. Although it was true that H.L. had made the calls there was no evidence of "reasonable" fear. H.L. attended for therapy on issues related to relationships and after a favourable report, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. J.L. (2016),
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket Court. Ms. J.L. was charged by York Regional Police after allegedly scratching and punching her husband during a domestic dispute at their house. Ms. J.L. called police. Mandarin was her first language and she was not interviewed properly. But she had visible signs of injuries and she complained of fending off an assault from her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained medical records for his client who sustained an injury that required medical attention. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained occurrence reports of prior calls to police that established a pattern of aggressive conduct by the complainant – her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with medical records and the occurrence reports. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. Z.K.L (2016),
Charges of assault and threaten death (domestic) withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney. Z.K.L. was allegedly to have grabbed and pushed his wife during a heated argument about the raising of their child. There was also an allegation of a threat. However, Z.K.L. sustained scratch marks on his neck and chest while the complainant sustained no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the injuries photographed and a medical expert examine the injuries who confirmed they were fresh – proximate in time to the alleged assault - and were consistent finger nails as the manner in which the marks were made. The pictures and report were disclosed to the Crown by Joseph Neuberger. The issue became clear that the couple wanted to reconcile and so Joseph Neuberger suggested individualized counselling followed by marital counselling in order to address the reasons for the couples’ arguments. After extensive therapy, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. E.T. (2016),
Charges of Luring x 2 and obtaining the sexual services of someone under 18, withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. E.T. was charged in a York Regional Police sting operation. The police place an ad on the Backpages for an escort of 18 years of age. During texting, the undercover officers indicates that the pretend escort is younger than 18. In this case, the officer sent a single text to E.T. and there was no direct reply by E.T. There was no confirmation or acknowledgement by E.T. of the alleged age. Joseph Neuberger conducted extensive legal research and had several pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial. Joseph Neuberger argued that the Crown must establish that the accused knew the age and although it could be inferred, there was no evidence from the text messages that gave any evidence that E.T. had actually read the text. Further, Joseph Neuberger argued that the timing of the text with the age overlapped in time with a text sent by E.T. and he thus may not have seen the text with the age. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. N.G. (2016),
Charges of domestic assault and threaten death withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The complainant informed N.G. that she wanted a divorce. N.G. then said that he would seek custody of the children. Within two days of that discussion, N.G. was charged by police with two domestic related offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained material from the family court and utilized the pleadings of the complainant to establish to the Crown inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement to police and her pleadings in Family court. Based on the material provided by the defence, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client were to sign a common law peace bond. As such, the client signed a common law peace bond, and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.A. (2016),
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and Ms. R.A. had been married for about two years. The marriage was having difficulties due to ongoing pressure from both of their careers and poor communication. Unfortunately the two had a heated argument which allegedly escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant allegedly sustained scratch marks to his chest and neck. The complainant called police. When police attended both the complainant and R.A. provided statements. As a result, both the complainant and R.A. were charged with assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from R.A.'s physician medical records detailing injuries well prior to this occurrence that were a result of prior abuse. Joseph Neuberger sent R.A. for private counseling. A report was furnished to the Crown along with a copy of the medical records and as a result the Crown subsequently withdrew the charge of domestic assault.

Regina v. H.B.S. (2016),
A three year odyssey successfully concluded for this client after charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 3 and Threaten Death stayed just prior to the commencement of a two week jury trial. H.B.S. was married for approximately ten years to the complainant. Unfortunately, around year eight of the marriage, the relationship soured and H.B.S. had been talking about a divorce. Prior to the marriage, the complainant signed a marriage contract that limited support and division of property upon a divorce. Ultimately, in April of 2012 the two separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home. In May of 2012, police were called to the home for a domestic incident during which H.B.S. was charged with grabbing his wife's arm during a verbal argument. There was a small red mark on her arm. When the complainant attended the police station and provided a video statement, the complainant gave information about historical sexual assault allegations and other assaults. H.B.S. was charged with various offences including two serious sexual assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained by H.B.S. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the family court documents, a copy of the marriage contract, and documents related to the complainant's prior marriage and divorce. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client various pieces of evidence, including emails, cards, pictures, a copy of the wedding video, plus numerous other related material for the purposes of cross-examination and to contradict the complainant's version of the marriage. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, extensively and in a detailed fashion, cross-examined the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained an admission from the complainant that in the divorce proceedings she was seeking to set aside the marriage contract partially due to the fact that she was alleging in an abusive relationship with H.B.S. prior to marriage and prior to signing the marriage contract. Thus, a conviction in the criminal case would bolster her case in the family court to set aside the marriage contract and the complainant could then gain over $2,000,000.00. There were numerous other inconsistencies raised by the defence including that both alleged brutal sexual assaults left NO injuries, yet in May of 2012 when she called the police, a red mark was found on her arm because the complainant stated that she "bruised easily." Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger further established that an alleged assault from 2002, supposedly witnesses by her sister, was not reliable. In fact, the complainant had written out the statement of her sister and Joseph Neuberger alleged that there was obvious collusion. Joseph Neuberger disclosed additional defence evidence to the Crown and continually argued that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Finally, just before the commencement of the jury trial, the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. M.S. (2016),
Charges of Domestic Assault and Threaten Death, withdraw after pre-trial discussions. M.S. was alleged to have been in an altercation with his former girlfriend in their apartment. Police were called by a neighbour and injuries were observed. However, the complainant refused to provide a statement. Police arrested M.S. based upon the statement of the neighbour, the injuries and the state of the apartment. M.S. retained a lawyer who then set the matter down for trial. At some point after setting the trial date, M.S. changed counsel and retained Joseph Neuberger. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed M.S., and in fact on the day of the alleged assault, M.S. had sustained injuries for which he attended his doctor. A report was obtained from the doctor by Neuberger. Further, Joseph Neuberger, adjourned the trial date and booked a judicial pre-trial. During the pre-trial, Joseph Neuberger provided the defence medical report that showed "defensive" wounds on M.S. and Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no real prospect of conviction based upon the available evidence. Further, the complainant did not want to attend court for a trial. As a result, the client signed a six month common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.K. (2016),
Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault x 6, Cruelty to Animals and Utter Death Threats x 2, withdrawn at the commencement of trial. H.K. and the complainant had been a couple for over 15 years and married for about six years. While H.K. was away on a business trip, the complainant attended the police station and made allegations of historical and current abuse. The complainant had hired a family law lawyer just prior to attending at the police station. When H.K. arrived home, he was arrested at the airport. The next day, the complainant filed a divorce application, seeking exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of their child. In the Application, the complainant detailed the alleged abuse and the fact that H.K. was charged with various criminal offences. H.K. was held for bail and then released with restrictions not allowing him contact or to attend the home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, obtained all of the family court documents, and reviewed years of emails and messages between the complainant and H.K. Even while away on the business trip, all communications were loving and supportive. In fact, email communications before and after alleged dates of offences showed only a loving and supportive relationship. The client also kept years of cards and pictures also demonstrating a loving relationship, all painting a picture contrary to the complainant’s version of the marriage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the communications and pictures to the Crown prior to trial as well as a detailed letter outlining the lack of corroborating evidence, and significant issues related to a possible motive to fabricate. At the eve of trial, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.B. (2016),
Charges of Domestic Assault and Utter Death Threats were withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown. A.B. and the complainant, had separated about three months before the allegations were made. On the day the complainant attended the police to give a statement, A.B.’s family law lawyer had provided a letter to the complainant denying her to remove their child from Toronto. There were email exchanges between the complainant and A.B. that clearly showed the complainant was very angry that she could not remove the child from Toronto. Within a hour after receiving the letter the complainant attended police and provided a statement that some years ago A.B. had assaulted her and that this day A.B. had threatened to kill her. A.B. was arrested, and charged. Family law counsel for A.B. brought a motion to court to prevent the complainant from removing the child from Toronto. The motion was granted. Defence lawyer Joseph obtained all of the family court documents, emails between the complainant and A.B. and some past recorded arguments in which the complainant made serious threats of violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the information to the Crown. After several pre-trial discussions, including providing the Crown with an outline of inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. M.D.R. (2015),
Charges of Aggravated Assault, Assault x2, and Utter Death Threats, withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown and during judicial pre-trials. At the point of an argument between M.D.R. and his wife, the complainant, M.D.R. informed the complainant that he wanted a divorce. While upstairs in the bedroom, the complainant called police. An investigation ensued and various statements were made about historical and current allegations of assault. The complainant refused to provide a video recorded statement but had recorded alleged threats made by her husband and had alleged medical records to support the Aggravated Assault charge. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of emails between the parties prior the police being called that supported a motive to fabricate. Further, the defence obtained the medical records which did not support the evidence of the aggravated assault charge. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a defence witness interviewed who provided a solid alibi defence to the aggravated assault charge and an explanation as to how the complainant sustained the injury. In fact, details in the medical records corroborated the statement of the defence witness. All defence investigation material was disclosed to the Crown. The complainant was advised to contact private counsel for independent legal advice. After extensive judicial pre-trial and pre-trial discussions, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.K. (2015),
Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching, stayed after evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the daughter of R.K.’s girlfriend. R.K. and the mother of the complainant had been in a committed relationship for three years. The complainant stated that for a two to three month period in the fall of 2014, R.K. had been touching her inappropriately. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the complainant and the mother of the complainant. Based on the statement of the mother, there appeared to very limited opportunity to have committed any of the alleged sexual assaults and more importantly when comparing the circumstances as described by the mother and the complainant, as to the nature of the relationships, the allegations seemed highly implausible. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to retrieve deleted emails and social media contacts between the complainant and R.K. that showed a healthy and caring relationship almost up to the point that the complainant made her allegations. Just prior to making the allegations, the complainant’s mother had decided to list her house for sale in order to move in with R.K.. This caused considerable emotional fear for the complainant as she did not want the house sold. The defence believed that the allegations were based on the complainant’s fear of her life changing and her mother moving on with her life, such that the allegations were an attempt to break up the relationship with R.K. After testimony at the preliminary hearing and a recantation under examination, the Crown decided to stay all charges.

Regina v. N.D. (2015),
Charges of domestic assault and assault with a weapon withdraw after judicial pre-trial. N.D. was alleged to have stopped his car when his girlfriend exited the car and went to run off. N.D. was accused of forcibly pushing the young lady back in the car and hitting her with an object. The alleged victim would not cooperate with police and during the investigation was in fact charged with public intoxication. A civilian allegedly witnessed the events from about a 100 metres away. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the scene and took measurements and pictures to establish that the witness could not have had a clear view and would not have been able to identify the client. Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that given the evidence the charges could not be proven. As a result both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.K. (2015),
Client charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and administering obnoxious substance arising from a one night stand in Niagara Falls. After a thorough cross examination by defence lawyer John Navarrete of the complainant at the jury at trial, the client was acquitted of all charges. Mr. Navarrete worked with his client closely to ensure not only that he was prepared for his testimony at trial but that all details from the night in question were explored and reviewed.

Regina v. M. B. (2015),
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend after a night of entertainment in downtown Toronto. Defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at College Park. After Mr. Navarrete's cross examination of the complainant, the court concluded that the complainant's evidence was simply unreliable given her consumption of alcohol. The client was acquitted at trial.

Regina v. S. F. (2015),
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted several meetings with the Crown's office in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete provided materials for the Crown's review. The Crown withdrew the charges and the client entered into a common law peace bond.

Regina v. D. G. (2015),
Client charged with a historical sexual assault involving a family member. After reviewing disclosure and conducting legal research, defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney's office in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate the weaknesses in the Crown's case particularly the complainant's lack of a concrete recollection and issues regarding her mental health. The charges were withdrawn.

R. v. M. L. (2015),
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to her husband. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and held various meetings with the Crown at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated various inconsistencies with the husband's evidence. Charges were withdrawn after the client completed the PAR program and entered into a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. C.L. (2015),
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and held various discussions with the complainant's independent counsel. After several meetings with the Crown in Newmarket, Mr. Navarrete was able to secure a withdrawal of the charges. The client completed the PAR program and entered into a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. J.M.B. (2015),
Client charged with assault against his step daughter. Defence lawyer John Navarrete held various discussions with the Crown Attorney's office at 1000 Finch and provided information for their consideration including a possible motive to lie by the complainant stemming from her personal mental health issues. The Crown agreed to withdraw all charges against the client.

Regina v. J.W. (2015),
Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. J.W. was accused by a female co-worker with sexual harassment for months that led up to J.W. allegedly sexually assaulting her on two back to back days at work. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statement of the complainant and five WeChat messages that the complainant provided police. These messages were from J.W. on the day of the alleged second assault. Joseph Neuberger obtained from J.W. another message that was sent by the complainant to J.W. that was about work but appeared friendly and contradicted the alleged timing of the second alleged sexual assault. After six hours of cross-examination, Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger raised numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. This was achieved by a very surgical cross-examination. In addition, through cross-examination Joseph Neuberger got the complainant to admit that she deleted all of her WeChat messages to J.W. including messgaes sent by her after the alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger established as well that the police investigation was highly deficient. The police did not interview any co-workers, did not check the security cameras for possible video of contact between the complainant and J.W., did not seize the complainant's cell phone to recover her messages to J.W., did not photograph the work area and did not seize work time sheets to even see if J.W. was actually working in the factory at the time of the alleged sexual assaults. After a lengthy and detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the Crown asked the Court to enter verdicts of not guilty on both charges.

Regina v. J.C.H. (2015),
Client discharged after two day preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice of two charges of Sexual Exploitation. J.C.H. was charged arising from his position as a teacher at a school where the two complainants had been attending. The two complainants were long time friends of J.C.H.. The friendships had formed long before J.C.H. had completed University and was certified as a teacher. However, while being a teacher at the same school as the two young ladies, intimate relationships had developed with these young ladies at two different times over a two year period. There were no allegations of sexual assault and the relationships were consensual. However, when the parents found out about the relationships, complaints were made to the police and after a very extensive investigation, J.C.H. was charged with the two counts of sexual exploitation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger went through the voluminous information provided by police in a very detailed fashion including the witnesses statements and the statements of the two young ladies who were the "complainants". After review of the relevant law, Joseph Neuberger, developed a strategy for cross-examination to bring out the true circumstances of the relationships. The prosecution argued that being a trust family friend of the two young ladies and a teacher at the school with some teaching contact with the young ladies, J.C.H. was in a position of trust and/or authority and there thus guilty. After focused cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the two young ladies at the preliminary hearing and argument in line with the law, the preliminary hearing judge found that there was no evidence to conclude, given the facts are elicited in cross-examination, that J.C.H. was in a position of trust or authority. J.C.H. was factually innocent of the allegations. Usually a teacher is in a position of trust or authority of a student but the determination is fact driven. In this case, the prior healthy relationships, and the evidence of the complainants at the preliminary hearing did not disclose that the nature of the relationships were that of student and teacher but in fact friends. Further, there was minimal contact at school where J.C.H. acted as a supply teacher for both young ladies. Accordingly, J.C.H. was discharged of the offences.

Regina v. D.M. (2015),
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials regarding the merits of the prosecution’s case. Mr. D.M. had been divorced from the complainant for over a decade. Unfortunately, relations between the two remained unpleasant. D.M. attended the complainant’s home to meet his two adult son’s and parked his car in the driveway. When he and his sons returned to the residence, the complainant parked behind D.M.’s car and confronted D.M. about parking on her property. An alleged physical altercation occurred and D.M. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had two statements taken from one of D.M.’s son and his fiancé. These statements were provided as defence disclosure to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger argued at the pre-trials that it was the complainant who intentionally sought out a confrontation. This was evidenced from blocking D.M.’s car and approaching him for an argument. After extensive judicial pre-trials, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that at best there would be competing versions of the event as there were witnesses for both the complainant and D.M. who are credible. In the spirit of not having to have even adult children continue in the parental conflict, Joseph Neuberger negotiated that the charge would be withdrawn if D.M. completed an anger management program and conflict resolution course and then would sign a section 810 peace bond. D.M. completed the program, signed the peace bond and the charge was withdrawn. The peace bond was not an admission of any liability and the withdrawal is consistent with the client being innocent. However, given that the children of the failed marriage had been through a lot, it made good sense to resolve without any trial. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.D. (2105),
Charges of domestic assault x 3 withdrawn in the Orangeville Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial dates. A.D. and the complainant allegedly had an altercation wherein A.D. is alleged to have pushed, slapped and grabbed the complainant, his wife. The wife alleged the assaults started in the kitchen and moved to the living room. When police arrived A.D. gave a statement to police that the complainant had come into his office and their discussions quickly escalated to a loud argument about finances. A.D. stated that the complainant wanted him to leave the house and started pushing off his work from his desk, including his computer. When police searched the house, notes were made by the officers that the home office was in a state of disarray and the lap top computer was on the floor. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and given the nature of the alleged assaults, no injuries were noted by the police. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, established that in fact A.D.’s version was at the least credible and gave rise to a valid defence. Further, a subsequent interview of the complainant revealed that in fact an argument did take place in the home office and not in the kitchen or the living room. Based on these and other important admissions, it was agreed that A.D. would sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. F.L. (2015)
Charges of domestic assault x2, and threatening withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials on the merits of the allegations. Sadly, the complainant wife and F.L. were going through a very stressful time in their lives given the health of the child of the marriage. Verbal arguments were common but the complainant alleged that throughout the marriage F.L. was verbally and physically abusive and on one particular day, that F.L. threw a salad bowl at her and her mother. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed collateral witnesses who were closely involved with the family for months leading up to the alleged assault. All witnesses contradicted the version of the marriage and in fact gave very positive evidence about the interactions of the couple. Further, upon careful scrutiny of the statements of the wife and the mother in law, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a chart of inconsistencies establishing to the Crown material deficiencies in the prosecution evidence that would affect credibility. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2015),
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.S. was charged with allegedly assaulting his girlfriend while he was asking her to move out of his apartment. The two had been living together for a short period of time and the relationship had been deteriorating. The complainant was from out of town and moved to Toronto to live with A.S. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer on the matter, reviewed the statement and evidence. There were no injuries consistent with the alleged assault and the 911 call was made in a calm manner. The fact that the alleged assault occurred coincidentally at the same time as A.S. requesting she leave the premises gave rise to a suspicion of fabrication. Joseph Neuberger negotiated that A.S. attend a therapy group and after completion of the program, the charge would be withdrawn. As such, A.S. signed a peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. I.Z. (2015),
Charges of Assault, Assault Peace Officer, Mischief Under $5,000.00, and Unlawfully in a Dwelling, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client, while highly intoxicated, entered the wrong apartment thinking it was his apartment. The client lay down on the couch and when the occupant found the I.Z., a struggle ensued with damage to the apartment. Later there was also a struggle with police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, had the client immediately assessed. The client was young and had never drank before. The independently verified about of alcohol consumed severely impaired the judgment of I.Z. and resulted in him truly believing he was in his own apartment. After therapy and community service work, Joseph Neuberger, negotiated with the Crown that I.Z. sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2015),
Charges of Sexual Assault x 5, Sexual Interference, Assault, and Extortion, withdrawn after initial stages of cross-examination of the complainant during the preliminary hearing. A.S. and the complainant were in a relationship for approximately three years. The allegations are domestic related charges. The complainant gave a statement to police in 2013 that A.S. had sexually assaulted her during the early stages of dating when she was only 15 years of age and then after breaking up when she was 18, A.S. had assaulted and sexually assaulted her on numerous times during 2011, 2012 and 2013. There were also allegations that A.S. was forcing the complainant to have intimate relations under the threat of releasing a photo of her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained with the assistance of a forensic expert, historical text and email communications between the parties dating back to 2010. The voluminous amount of communications disclosed that the two continued a relationship and there were other issues that impacted why the complainant had come forth to police and made allegations that were inaccurate given the real state of their relationship. After early cross-examination, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sat down with the Crown Attorney and walked him through the material and history of A.S. and the complainant. The Crown very fairly determined that based upon the disclosed defence emails and text messages, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.I. (2015),
Charge of sexual assault stayed on first day of trial. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a female he met from a dating website. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed numerous text messages between the parties. In addition the defence obtained a copy of the complainant’s profile that she placed on the website. Tracking of the complainants activities showed shortly after the alleged sexual assault, the complainant was back on several dating websites. At trial, there were issues related to the complainant’s ability to testify and after discussions between Joseph Neuberger and the Crown, the charge was formally stayed.

Regina v. P.G. (2015),
Client found not guilty after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto of sexual assault. The client was accused of attending the complainant's room in a housing unit around 2:30 am and forcing himself on her. The complainant and P.G. were from Taiwan. The complainant was attending school and had befriended P.G. In the complainant's statement and testimony she minimized any real contact and relationship with P.G. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain from his client's phone a voluminous amount of text and email communications that directly contradicted the complainant. After extensive cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant had downplayed significant aspects of her relationship with P.G.. Further, available evidence did not support her story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed a defence witness who he called at trial. The witness directly contradicted the complainant on material aspects of her evidence. P.G. testified. In the end, the client was found not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.

Regina v. Q.J. (2015),
Client found not guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was a student adviser/teacher and was alleged to have sexually assaulted an international student at the residence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on text messages sent two days after the alleged assault to Q.J. and just prior to her attendance at the police station. The messages revealed a motive to fabricate. In addition, it appeared that the complainant had colluded with a potential witness which came out during cross-examination of the complainant. During cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the complainant became vague and unclear on discussions and meetings she had with Q.J. prior to the alleged assault. Further, the defence interviewed an independent witness which contradicted the complainant on a number of facts. As such, Q.J. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. P.L. (2015),
Charge of failure to provide the necessities of life (alleged elder abuse case) stayed after one year of extensive judicial pre-trials. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger reviewed extensive medical records produced and statements of witnesses. Both the Crown and defence met and discussed in significant detail whether the facts showed any legal obligation of care. The complainant was living independently, and P.L. was not legally obligated to care for the complainant even though he did. The medical issue that arose was not obvious and the complainant had not wished to attend the doctor. After extensive review of case law, and all of the evidence, the Crown concluded, based on discussions with Joseph Neuberger, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was stayed.

Regina v. B.S. (2015),
Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his wife with allegedly grabbing and hitting her while in the kitchen during an argument. When police attended, the client spoke to police and advised that the argument occurred in the office at which time the complainant had started to throw papers and documents off of his desk. He advised police that he grabbed her to stop her from damaging his work documents. No injuries were visible. After extensive discussions with the Crown and an amendment to the bail allowing the couple to attend joint marriage counselling, the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. A.H. (2015),
Charge of Voyeurism withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was alleged to have exposed himself of two occasions in a public place. There was extensive psycho-sexual testing completed and therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the alleged conduct was related to mental health issues that did not give rise to any future risk of violence or repeat offences. The client had also completed a considerable amount of community service and remained on release for approximately a year without any further issues. As a result, the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond.

Regina v. B.R. (2015),
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. B.R. made allegedly made a video of an encounter with a unidentified female that appeared to be a non-consensual act. B.R. was investigated by police for an unrelated matter and his cell phone was seized and examined by police. Police demanded that B.R. provide them with the pass word to the cell phone. Police found the recording on the phone and charged B.R. A warrant was sought after the phone was seized. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the validity of the demand for the password as a breach of the client's Charter rights and that the resulting search of the phone was unlawful. The warrant as well was deficient in many respects. Lastly, Joseph Neuberger, argued that the unidentified female may have actually consented and without a statement and hence evidence from the complainant, the Crown could not prove "lack of consent". Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. E.K. (2015),
Client found not guilty of Gang Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, Threaten Bodily Harm, and Sexual Assault with a Weapon after a five day trial in the Superior Court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained along with counsel for the co-accused police records regarding three prior occurrences of the complainant having made sexual assault allegations that were false. In addition, cross-examination of the complainant revealed significant inconsistencies, and substantial memory and recall issues. The two accused did not testify at trial. After considering all of the evidence, the trial judge noted that there were serious issues of credibility and reliability regarding the complainant’s evidence and the Court was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant had not consented to the sexual contact. As such, E.K. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. D.K. (2015),
Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial. The complainant alleged that she was inappropriately touched and kissed by D.K. during a tutoring session. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement from another student who was also present at the time of the alleged assault. The witness contradicted the evidence of the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the class and office area photographed. The entire space was less than 400 square feet. There was a large window between the office and the class room with a clear view into the classroom. The complainant's mother was also present, seated in the office area, only a few steps away from where the complainant was working and allegedly assaulted. D.K. had been operating the business for over 14 years with absolutely no other complaints. At trial the Crown determined, based upon all the evidence and a number of relevant factors, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. N.C. (2015),
Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous withdrawn prior to trial date. The client was charged allegedly with hitting and brandishing a knife during an argument with her spouse. No knife was recovered. The complainant sustained no visible injuries. There were background issues pertaining to marital discord over finances and the complainant wanted N.C. to leave the house. After extensive discussions with the Crown, and the complainant taking counselling, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.A. (2014),
Charges of Sexual Assault x 3 and Assault withdrawn after cross-examination by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the former spouse of R.A. R.A. and the complainant had BDSM sexual interests. After R.A. ended the relationship and retained family law counsel, the complainant went to the police and alleged a history of physical, sexual and verbal abuse. R.A. was charged and the complainant also brought a motion in Family Court to obtain sole custody of their child. In light of the charges, an interim order for sole custody was made. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a large volume of emails between the parties dating back to when the parties started dating. The emails disclosed an ongoing relationship where both parties were more than interested in sexual contact and showed that even after the alleged dates of the sexual assaults, the complainant sought intimacy with R.A. even though R.A. made it clear the he wanted no more contact. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded sexual encounters between the parties, three of which occurred after the alleged sexual assaults and after the complainant said all sexual contact had ended. R.A. was originally represented by other counsel. A full day of the preliminary hearing was conducted and the previous defence lawyer failed to cross-examine on the email messages and on the sex tapes. Defence Attorney Joseph Neuberger, once he took over the file, obtained the emails and sex recordings from the client. Joseph Neuberger then brought a section 276 Application to be allowed to cross-examine the complainant on the emails as well as the recordings. The application was granted. Joseph Neuberger then cross-examined the complainant for a full second day of the preliminary hearing. As a result of the cross-examination, the complainant's credibility was damaged beyond repair. The Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly all charges were stayed.

Regina v. R.A. (2014),
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The allegations did not disclose a consistent story. The complainant's evidence was inconsistent and the alleged assault would have resulted in injury if it were true. However, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown during pre-trial discussions and was able to establish that the Crown had a weak case. As a result, R.A. completed 12 sessions of counselling and then signed a peace bond. Both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.K.W. (2014),

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.K.W. was alleged to have followed and emailed the complainant, and ex-girlfriend, for several weeks. However, the emails that were disclosed by the complainant were only incomplete. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the email threads that established the complainant was initiating contact as well. In addition, the defence was able to establish that on two occasions when the complainant said that she was followed by C.K.W., he was in fact at work. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.T. (2014),
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant alleged that S.T. had struck her while at Canada's Wonderland. The client was arrested by security. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement of another witness that showed the complainant and first grabbed the crotch area of S.T. resulting in him striking her to get her to stop the assault. As a result of the independent witness statement the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.R. (2014),
Charges of Sexual Assault and Extortion discharged after completion of the Preliminary Hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a subordinate volunteer at a religious centre over the course of several years. The historical sexual assault allegations included a wide ranging array of sexual acts, as well as threats and coercion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively and aggressively cross-examined the complainant at the preliminary hearing. Numerous text messages and chats were put to the complainant in an attempt to establish that the complainant did not view A.R. as a person in authority and more importantly actively pursued him over the years for a relationship. The complainant admitted contacting A.R. "all the time" and expressing her love for him and wanting to be with him. She even attended his home and maintained a friendship with his wife and insisted on babysitting A.R.’s daughter. After cross-examination, the Crown Attorney reviewed the evidence and decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the charges were discharged (meaning no evidence to commit to trial on).

Regina v. J.T. (2014),
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, client was acquitted. Lawyer John Navarrete cross examined the complainant and after the evidence was closed, the Judge stated, "he could not believe one word" from the complainant. Mr. Navarrete in a careful cross examination demonstrated the complainant’s lack of credibility, reliability and believability. The accused had also been charged for Fail to Comply with a his terms of bail and his trial scheduled shortly after the assault trial, but the Crown decided to withdraw that charge because she no longer believed the complainant either.

Regina v. J.Y. (2014),
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Forcible Confinement, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Pembroke, Ontario. J.Y. had arranged a date with a young lady through a social chat site. After the couple had relations, an argument ensued and the police were called. J.Y. was charged. At trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, directly challenged the complainant's credibility and reliability on many aspects of her story. It was established through cross-examination that there was no assault and no forcible confinement. Further, the complainant's version of how the evening unfolded was not believable given the objective evidence and text messages. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that her version of events was unrealistic in relation to some admissions made by the complainant and the text messages. As a result J.Y. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. S. Z. (2014),
Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic) withdrawn prior to setting trial date. S.Z. was accused of assaulting his ex-wife on two separate occasions. The client had taken pictures of injuries he sustained during the course of the altercations. Just after the charges were laid, the complainant moved in Family Court for an order for exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through numerous prior emails from the complainant a pattern of threatening conduct wherein if S.Z. did not make a settlement with the complainant she was make false allegations against him. After detained discussions with the Crown and a lengthy judicial pre-trial, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that the complainant had serious credibility issues. In addition it was S.Z. who suffered injury and not the complainant. As a result both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J. S. (2014),
Client found not guilty of three counts of assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Guelph. J.S. was charged with having assaulted three bouncers by punching them and spitting blood at them while at a nightclub. Five security personnel from the bar and three police officers testified for the prosecution. Interestingly there were no witnesses from the bar other than police and security. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officer in charge and all witnesses on the deficient investigation in relation to not taking statements from any "independent" witnesses and the lack of any surveillance footage of the alleged assaults. The bar had a digital security surveillance system yet there was NO video. Further, there were no photos of any alleged injuries. J.S. had sustained serious injury and Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined each prosecution witness on the photographs of J.S.’s injuries and asked which were responsible for the injuries. Not one prosecution witness would admit any punch or kick to J.S. during the alleged struggle. After extensive cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish numerous inconsistencies and the simple fact that certain prosecution witnesses were not being forthright in their evidence. As a result, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. H.C. (2014),
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was a front desk supervisor at a hotel in Toronto. A number of guests in a room were causing a disturbance. It was alleged that H.C. attended the room having known the occupants. While in the room, H.C. was alleged to have stayed in a separate room with a female guest and raped her. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined all crown witnesses and was able to establish serious inconsistencies in the evidence, evidence of collusion and tainted memory and clear implausibility of a number of aspects of the evidence of the complainant and one of the main supporting witnesses. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, defence counsel, was able to raise serious doubt about the truth of the complainant's evidence and H.C. was found not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. W.A. (2014),
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client, a taxi driver, was accused of sexually assaulting a customer who was seated in the front passenger seat of his car. At trial defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of issues, including her level of intoxication. The interior of the taxi cab has an in-car camera. The entire ride was digitally recorded. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and established that at the time the complainant made her allegation she was not aware of the presence of an in-car camera and therefore she did not know that the ride was captured digitally. Further, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s in-court testimony and her recorded interview with police. There was a motive to fabricate as the complainant was drunk at the time of the alleged incident and got angry at W.Q. because he was not able to take the complainant to her home address. The complainant did not want to pay for the taxi ride. W.A. was well prepared to give evidence at the trial. In its judgment, the Court found the complainant’s evidence unreliable. Further, the Court accepted the evidence of W.A. Accordingly, W.A. was acquitted of the charge of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.C. (2014),
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault x 3 and Domestic Assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. D.C. was charged during the initial stages of a separation by his wife. His wife alleged that sometime in the fall of 2012 D.C. started to sexually assault her in order to convince her to move ahead with divorce proceedings. In January 7, 2013 D.C. was alleged to have not only sexually assaulted his wife but also forced her down on a bed and caused injury to her wrist. On January 7, 2013, the complainant left the house after the alleged assaults and went directly to her family law lawyer. On January 10, 2013 the complainant went to police and D.C. was charged with the four criminal offences. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, cross-examined the complainant on her family court filings including the initial application seeking sole custody of the children and the exclusive possession of the house. The Application, of course, included the charges but also allegations of ongoing abuse in the marriage. D.C. was not able to gain access to his children for several weeks after released on bail. Once an interim order was put in place, D.C. only had limited access to his children and was prevented from any access to the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish in cross-examination that the complainant knew the effect criminal charges would have on her success in obtaining full custody and exclusive possession of the home. Further, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish significant inconsistencies between her in-court testimony and her statement. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time preparing D.C. for his testimony. In the court’s decision, the judge accepted the evidence of D.C. and found serious concerns with the complainant’s evidence including the implausibility of her allegations. The court relied on the cross-examination of the complainant in concluding that D.C. had to be found not guilty.

Regina v. S.S. (2014),
Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted a pedestrian as a "road rage" incident. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the area where the offence was alleged to have been committed with the client. A re-enactment was done with photograph and video evidence of where the witnesses were standing. It was obvious that the witnesses could not have viewed anything much less seen what they stated in their statements. In addition, an investigator retained by the defence found an employee of a store that works right at the corner who had witnesses the incident. His version of the event was contradictory to the complainant's version. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger turned over all defence evidence to the Crown. The Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.S. (2014),
Charges of Robbery x 4, Possession of Stolen Property, Utter Death threats, Mischief Under $5,000.00, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, and Use Imitation Firearm, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a date for trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinzed all the statements and evidence and drafted a chart in relation to the evidence and highlighted all the inconsistencies. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown assigned to the file the chart and explained in detail all of the deficits of the prosecution's case. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a complete lack of credible reliable evidence and as a result the prosecutor agreed with defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on any of the charges. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. (2014),
Charges of Assault x 6 (Domestic), Sexual Assault x 2 (Domestic) and Fail to comply x 2 withdraw prior the commencement of the preliminary hearing. D.S. was charged by his ex-wife with historical allegations dating back almost six years pror to the couple's separation. The charges were laid just after D.S. won a interim custody order in family court. The client immediately had difficulty retaining custody of his children once the charges were laid. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger worked with the family law counsel to gather up all of the complainant's affidavits and pleadings. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained a recording of a song that the complainant had the children sing to D.S. just after separation about how he was sick in the head. Discussions occurred between the assigned Crown and Joseph Neuberger due to concerns for the well being of the children. As a result, Joseph Neuberger provided a detailed chart of the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence between her statement and the various affidavits filed in Family Court, a recording of the son and Joseph Neuberger further provided the full draft cross-examination to the Crown for her review. After discussions, the Crown agreed with Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.L. (2014),
Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client had an ongoing relationship with a young woman who professed to be 17 years of age. Unfortuntely, she lied and was under the legal age of consent. The mother of the complainant discovered the relationship and contacted police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger researched the social media postings of the complainant including dating sites and discovered numberous profiles with the age of 17. In addition, the complainant seemed to suggest in her statement to police that she may have lied about her age to J.L. In addition, the defence disclosed the proposed evidence of J.L. to the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. K.B. (2014),
Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. K.B. was alleged to have sexually assaulted his grandaughter. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed cross-examination at trial of each crown witness to establish significant inconsistencies in the story of the complainant; evidence that showed that K.B., with in a moment of the alleged assault, was actually in another room and seemed "normal". Finally, and most significant, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able establish that the circumstances in which the alleged sexual assault was to have occurred were implausible and stretched the bounds of imagination. Joseph Neuberger also carefully prepared K.B. for giving evidence and at trial. When K.B. testified, the judge while rendering his reasons for the verdict accepted the evidence of K.B. As a result, K.B. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. D.S. (2014),
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the assigned crown regarding the minor nature of the allegation and in fact the implausibility of how the complainant explained how the alleged assault occurred. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. S.X.U. (2013)
Charges of sexual assault x 3, and sexual interference x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged historical assaults while living as a tenant with her mother in the basement of S.X.U's home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a detailed cross-examination of the complainant along with taking statements from two crucial defence witnesses who were to testify at trial. Joseph Neuberger was able at trial to establish to the Crown major inconsistencies and implausible facts that resulted in the Crown re-assessing the case and concluding that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were withdrawn.


Regina v. A.S. (2013)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was accused of luring a female under the guise of a job as a nanny. While in the home during the "interview" he was alleged to have sexually assaulted her. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the statement establishing internal inconsistencies and the complaint was reluctant to being cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger. There was an issue of the complainant actually soliciting during the interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment establishing no sexual deviant tendencies and on that basis the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond simply to have no contact with the complainant. The charge was formally withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M. (2013)
Charges of harassing phone calls and criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial. The complainant was accused of making numerous calls to her ex-spouse and of harassment. The defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, obtained the criminal record of the accused and then via an application under the Freedom on Information Act, obtained the occurrences and most importantly the notes of the officers regarding the past criminal record. Notably there was history of fabrication. In addition no alleged messages left by the client were ever recorded and no photo's taken of my client attending at his place of residence. After discussions with the Crown, Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.W.K. (2013)
Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault and 8 counts of sexual assault withdrawn. The client was accused of touching a female on a TTC train. The female took a picture of the male and when reported the same to police, the police did a press release and 9 other people came forward to allege similar assaults. Once full disclosure was provided, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, chartered out all of the statements and identification evidence to establish that there not only was tainting of identification as a result of the police's press release but also many of the complainants gave descriptions that did not fit the client. Further, the Crown wanted to pursue a similar act application to show that the method of assault was similar through all of the counts and as such, there could be enough evidence of identification. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought statistical data from the TTC about the frequency, numbers and details of sexual assaults on trains and/buses. Not surprisingly the rate was very high and showed that almost 90 per cent all involved the exact same method of assault and as such, there was no basis to a similar act application.

Regina v. N.R. (2013)
Charge of assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The client was in an altercation with a female complainant that seemed largely unexplained. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client assessed by a forensic psychiatrist and it was discovered that the client had been suffering from a major mental illness for some time that was not diagnosed and not treated. As a result, the client was assessed and began treatment. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a report from the psychiatrist and provided same to the Crown. As a result of a number of discussions, it was agreed that the charge be withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2013)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having allegedly lured a woman into his home under the pretense of a job as a nanny. During the interview, the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. Investigation by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger in the social media postings of the complainant established that she was never looking for any position as a nanny but had been made statements contrary to what she alleged to police. In addition, statements taken by the defence from the security staff at the building where the client resided indicated that when the complainant attended she was dressed not appropriately for an interview and when leaving was in a happy mood asking them to order her a taxi. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also had the client undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment to show that he was and is of low to no risk to females. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. H.V. (2013)
Client was charged with various sexual assault allegations made by 2 female family members that were historical in nature and spanned a lengthy time period. After a 4 day trial and extensive cross-examination of the Complainants by lawyer Stacey Nichols, as well as presentation of Defence evidence of other family members which refuted the Complainant's allegations, client was acquitted of all charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. A.G. (2013)
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant during the course of a bitter divorce alleged that at an exchange of their child under the interim custody arrangement, A.G. assaulted her while she was holding the child. Fortunately, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to track down two civilian witnesses who provided statements that the complainant was acting in a highly belligerent and volatile state. In addition, recordings of the compliant made during arguments with the A.G. were turned over to the Crown to establish the aggressive nature of the complainant's interaction with A.G. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown withdrew the charge on the basis of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. K.M. (2013)
Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Hamilton. Client was charged by his girlfriend with having assaulted her on at least two occasions. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a cross-examination based on numerous subtle, but important, inconsistencies and drafted a chart of these inconsistencies based upon her statement, occurrence reports and her 911 call. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from two witnesses in relation to a subsequent occurrence in order to establish that she fabricated a further allegation of breach of K.M's bail. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed chart of all of the inconsistencies, details as to her motive to lie and a draft of the cross-examination. As a result, the Crown assessed the case and determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.R. (2013)
Charges of sexual assault and threatening harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was a young person alleged to have engaged in "bullying" activity including a sexual assault and threatening of the complainant while at school. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger critically assessed the statement of the complainant along with the statements of a number of witnesses, and then obtained statements from teachers and other witnesses in relation to the actions and behaviors of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with an extensive package of statements and a detailed letter outlining why the complainant lacked credibility and why there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After several pre-trial discussions with the assigned Crown, the charges were withdrawn on the basis of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. R.C. (2013)
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial. R.C. was charged with allegedly assaulted his girlfriend after she accused him of cheating on her. After the charge was laid the complainant continued to text and communicate with R.C. and demand funds for some alleged debt that he owed. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client all of the communications and further had statements taken from individuals who the complainant had spoken to about the allegations and made disparaging remarks and contradictory remarks about the allegations. Joseph Neuberger put together a defence disclosure package of all the communications and statements and provided same to the crown attorney. After extensive discussions, the Crown concluded that the complainant had no credibility and that there may have been financial motivation and a revenge aspect to the allegation in the first place. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.M. (2013)
Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and forcible confinement after trial. R.M. was alleged to have forced his ex-girlfriend into his house, locked the doors and held her against the door while arguing with her about the demise of their relationship. During this alleged altercation, R.M. was injured and the complainant sustained no injuries. After Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that R.M., after having been struck and started to bleed, told the complainant that he was going to call police and asked the complainant to leave. It was after this that the complainant first called police and did so while remaining on R.M."s porch, which under cross-examined was used to show that the complainant was not fearful (otherwise she would have sought refuge in her car or some other safe location) and instead contacted police in order to pre-empt her from being charged for having assaulted R.M. Other significant factors were raised during cross-examination that undermined the complainant's version of events. R.M. was well prepared by Joseph Neuberger and testified in a straightforward and believable manner. As such, the trial judge found R.M. credible and R.M. was found not guilty of both charges.

R. v. T(L.) 2013
The Appellant was convicted at trial of Assault and Assault With a Weapon as a result of an altercation during a domestic dispute when a baseball bat was thrown. In the Court of Appeal, lawyer successfully argued that the conduct proven by the Crown did not amount to an assault. The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted this argument and the Appellant’s convictions for Assault and Assault with a Weapon were overturned and an acquittal entered.

Regina v. M.Z. (2013)
Client charged with alleged sexually assaulting his wife, withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on important inconsistencies between her 911 call and the statements she provided to police. Mr. Neuberger was able to establish that there were financial motivations to the complainant making the allegation of sexual assault and in fact the translated statement, as the original statement was in Punjabi, was not accurate which gave rise to the inherent unreliability of her initial allegations. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. J.B. (2013)
Charges of sexual assault and domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted his girlfriend while in a hotel and when she fled grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back to the room. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to have the complainant re-interviewed during which the complainant recanted the allegation and also confirmed her state of high intoxication. The defence obtained copies of her bar tab establishing that the complainant had consumed a large volume of alcohol close in time to the alleged sexual assault. Further, an independent witness who allegedly observed the grabbing of the hair, was inconsistent in his statement, and was contradicted in his timing given the re-interview of the complainant. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, the client agreed to attend an expert retained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger for counseling and after completion of 12 sessions, the client signed a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn

Regina v. S.R.X. (2013)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a young woman who was passed out and later died from a drug overdose. The police were called the next day when the young woman's body was found and S.R.X. was interviewed and charged based on the content of his interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the client's statement prior to the first set date and was able to conduct an early pre-trial with the assigned Crown. The statement was not admissible as it was very clear that S.R.X. was struggling during the interview to properly express himself in English and thus the statement ought to have been taken in Mandarin, the client's first language. Further, when the client obtained legal advise from duty counsel, the advise was also provided in English and the client had expressed to the police that he did not fully understand what duty counsel had explained. As such, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the client did not obtain proper legal advise breaching his Charter right and that in any event the statement was so poor given the problems in language thus resulting in the Crown withdrawing the charge on the first appearance in court.

Regina v. J.C.K. (2013)
Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Disobey Court Order withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. The client had been charged previously by his former wife with assault related allegations and after being acquitted at trial was charged one year later with the new allegation of assault and disobey family court order. Joseph Neuberger, counsel for J.C.K. took the position that the complainant had fabricated the entire incident. There was no supporting evidence and Joseph Neuberger acquired an Affidavit from a former witness used by the complainant who recently confirmed in the Affidavit, under oath, that the complainant had asked her to lie in the previous case. The judgement in the previous case specifically referred to the complainant having fabricated evidence and being an unreliable witness. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided extensive materials to the Crown, including a copy of the transcript of Joseph Neuberger's cross-examination of the complainant in the previous trial along with the judgment in order to establish that the complainant has absolutely no credibility. After several pre-trial meetings the Crown, the prosecution decided to withdraw the charges based on the material provided and confirmed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. G.M. (2013)
Charges of assault (domestic), threaten death and mischief under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial. The evidence as disclosed by the prosecution was contradictory as one witness who allegedly observed the assault gave a completely different version of how the argument and assault started. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had additional statements taken to further undermine the statement of the complainant. All statements were disclosed during pre-trial discussions with the Crown. After several pre-trial meetings, the Crown agreed with the defence position and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.G. (2013)
Client found innocent of domestic charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Threaten Death x 2, and Disobey Court Order x 2 after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant had charged T.G. on two prior occasions both of which resulted in withdrawals. The complainant alleged in February of 2011 that T.G. committed a brutal assault five days after she was removed from the home owned by T.G. by police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought an abuse application for a stay of proceedings alleging that the Crown ought to have withdrew the charges based on the lack of credibility of the complainant and thus an improper assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, actions taken by the complainant and the police after the laying of the charges were quite abusive. For example, the complainant alleged that T.G. had stolen a bed that belonged to the complainant for their son. The complainant produced an invoice dated June 9, 2009. Based on the receipt police attended the client's mother's home and essentially threaten charges unless she would turn over the bed to the complainant. Under cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger asked the complainant to identify the date of the invoice which was June of 2009 and then to read out the price paid. The price paid clearly stated a number including HST. HST only came into effect in July of 2010. The invoice had to have been made up by the complainant and the officer who acted on the invoice clearly paid no attention to whether the invoice was authentic. Detailed cross-examination by Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger yielded countless inconsistencies and implausible answers that led the Judge to find T.G. innocent and to completely reject the evidence of the complainant. For details of the abuse application see below.
Click Here To Read the Abuse Application

Regina v. I.H. (2013)
Charges of Domestic Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial. I.H. was charged with having assaulted his wife and two children during the course of the marriage. At the dissolution of the marriage, the complainant left the matrimonial home and went to live in a shelter with the two children. At that time the complainant alleged the abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the statements of the complainants transcribed and then carefully analyzed each statement. At which time Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a chart of inconsistencies that not only undermined the reliability of the complaints' evidence but were quite implausible. Consequently all charges were withdrawn .

Regina v. Z.M, (2013)
Historical charges of sexual assault x 3, sexual interference x 3, and forcible confinement withdrawn after three day preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger first took statements from other potential defence witnesses and gathered demonstrative evidence that limited the timing the allegations could have occurred. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted an extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant raising many issues of not only inconsistencies between her in court testimony and her statements to police, but robust cross-examination on issues of how implausible some of the facts were including where one of the alleged sexual assaults was alleged to have occurred including the manner. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger called evidence from the complainant's father to also establish collusion and one other witness to establish motive for the complainant to have fabricated the allegations. As a result, all charges were withdrawn after completion of the preliminary hearing.
Click Here To Read the Related Article

Regina v. R.K., (2013)
Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the Crown regarding the evidence as described by the complainant her statement. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was an ulterior motive to the allegations, namely an attempt by the complainant to thwart R.K.'s access to his child. Given other evidence presented by the defence including an assessment, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges .

Regina v. M.W., (2013)
Client found not guilty of charges of Forcible Entry, Unlawful Confinement, and Assault with a Weapon, after a two week jury trial. M.W. was a police officer who was charged as a result of entering a crime scene without a warrant. M.W. was charged with another officer. After attending an emergency call wherein a male was severely beaten, M.W. gathered information that led them to a house that was the crime scene. Due to the fear for the destruction of evidence, the two officers entered the home without a warrant. A complaint was made by one occupant of the house and the two officers were charged. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger argued at trial that there were ample grounds for M.W. to enter the home and there were genuine urgent circumstances that necessitated the entry to the home without a warrant. After a two week trial, M.W. along with his fellow officer was acquitted by the jury.
Read Article

Regina v. A.E., (2013)
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.E. was alleged to have lured a young women to his house under the pretence of a job interview. The two exchanged information via Kijiji and then arranged an interview for a date in February of 2012. A.E. was alleged to have used an alias for his name. While at A.E.'s residence, the complainant alleged that she was applying for a cleaning job and she was made to clean a bathroom. During the cleaning, A.E. was alleged to have touched the complainant inappropriately and to have made sexual comments. Further, after the cleaning in the bathroom, the complainant alleged she was invited into the bedroom to continue the interview where she was sexually assaulted including forced intercourse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant establishing additional facts that supported the defence theory that the complainant did not intend to interview for a cleaning job but in fact while in the home, the complainant acted in a sexually provocative manner and eventually proposition A.E. Joseph Neuberger established significant inconsistencies in cross-examination of the complainant and slowly gained crucial admissions from the complainant about acting sexually provocatively and after having told A.E. that she "hated cleaning" that she then told A.E. that "there were other ways for her to make money". Joseph Neuberger established that these crucial admissions had been intentionally left out of the complainants statement to police. Based upon a thorough and highly effective cross-examination of the complainant, without the client testifying, the Court found A.E. not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.S. (2012)
Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference. Lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined the Complainant over a 2 day period and also presented defence evidence showing that the allegations could not have occurred as alleged by the Complainant. Client acquitted of both charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. R.M. and W.M. (2012)
Charges of assault causing bodily harm dismissed after lengthy discussions with the Crown. The two clients were charged with a fight arising from a dispute at a Toronto nightclub. The evidence was contradictory but defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained further evidence demonstrating the complainant as having been involved in an attack on R.M. and W.M. which supported the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and the two clients merely acted in self-defence. Accordingly, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. T.N. (2012)
Charges of Threaten Death x 2 and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements of independent witnesses and the video surveillance of the location where the incident was alleged to have occurred. The evidence established material inconsistencies with the two complainant's version of events. As a result of the defence investigation, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G.A. (2012)
Charges of Threaten Death x 3, Assault x 2, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain a copy of a 42 minute taped argument between the complainant and M.G.A.. The tape disclosed that the complainant was extremely aggressive, threatening and out of control while the client was at all times controlled. Two other recorded arguments further added to the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and made up the allegations because the client ended the 16 year marriage. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the crown that based on the disclosed evidence there was not reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were this withdrawn.

Regina v. D.K. (2012)
Charges of mischief and indecent act withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The client was alleged to have exposed himself while leaving a subway on a path that was dark with a potential female victim that was several metres ahead of the client. The evidence presented was conflicting in whether it was possible for the potential victim to have seen anything. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic assessment to rule out any sexual deviations and provided the report to the Crown showing that there was no such issues and no risk to the community. After numerous meetings with the Crown and judicial pre-trials, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. B.L.C. (2012)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a female friend after they attended a casino and went to the hotel to rest before returning to Toronto. The allegations were very serious and reported to police later that night. The complainant had a boyfriend and when she returned home an argument ensued about why she went with B.L.C. to the casino. It was during this argument that the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. In the complainant's statement, it was alleged that B.L.C. made numerous affectionate moves on the complainant, while in the casino, that were flatly rejected by the complainant, including the complainant intentionally standing away from B.L.C. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the surveillance footage from the Casino. Joseph Neuberger then charted out the alleged acts in the statement with the surveillance footage. There were numerous inconsistencies, including footage showing the complainant standing beside B.L.C. rubbing his back and stroking his neck. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, commenced cross-examining the complainant with the inconsistencies. Unbelievably, the police never sought the surveillance and once disclosed by the defence, it was not reviewed. After one day of the preliminary hearing, the Crown had serious concerns about the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger, and his paralegal Grace Condello, prepared a new chart outlining the in court testimony as contrasted with both the original statement and surveillance, and then provided the chart to the Crown. As a result of the obvious inconsistencies, it was apparent that the complainant may have fabricated the entire allegation. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2012)
Client was found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed pressing cross-examination of the complainant, yielding numerous material inconsistencies and eventually an admission that both allegations may have been a figment of her imagination. Further cross-examination established that she was unsure if anything happened and may have just been telling stories to get attention. The two other witnesses called by the Crown were also extensively cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger in a manner that established that the complainant both before and after the alleged sexual assaults did not show any distress and in fact appeared to like the accused and wanted to spend time with the accused. No defence was called and the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.K. (2012)
Charges of Mischief under $5,000.00 and Assault Peace Officer, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with allegedly assaulting an off-duty police officer who attempted to arrest the J.K. after J.K. allegedly damaged his car. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client assessed given certain issues pertaining to the client's mental health and after a series of pre-trials with the Crown and the client undertaking a meaningful course of counseling, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M.(2012)
Client charged with assault with a weapon on her ex-husband withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was separated and living at another address. While returning the children after a weekend, the client saw the girlfriend of the complainant (ex-husband) in the matrimonial home. The client got upset and the complainant grabbed the client and physically removed her from the house. While being dragged out of the house, the client hit the complainant with a toy water gun. The complainant called police. Shockingly the client was actually charged with assault with a weapon. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the crown and was able to establish that the separation agreement stipulated that she still had rights to be at the matrimonial home and the ex-husband by physically removing the complainant committed an assault to which the client was legally permitted to defend herself. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Thomas (2012)
Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to young complainant after 5 day trial during which counsel Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined complainant, complainant's sister and mother. Ms. Nichols cross-examination revealed numerous inconsistencies and problems with the Crown's evidence. The trial judge ultimately found that he could not rely on the evidence and all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Purcaru (2012)
Client acquitted of domestic related charges after 2 days of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Complainant, who was the Accused person's ex-wife, was cross-examined extensively and was confronted with prior affidavits from family court proceedings which revealed serious problems with the veracity of her evidence. Charges dismissed.

Regina v. J.T. (2012)
Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, prior to the preliminary hearing. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting one of his daughters. The allegations arose through disclosure by a pastor in the church where the family attended. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the statements of the complainant, and the notes of the pastor and CAS. After having all statements transcribed, Joseph Neuberger, was able to analyze the statements and provided the Crown with a detailed chart of material internal inconsistencies arising not only from the deficient interviewing but tainting by the pastor who made the first disclosure to CAS and then police. In addition, the complainant was re-interviewed through the defence investigation. The re-interview shed light on a number of issues going to the reliability of the initial statement to police and CAS. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.L.H.F. (2012)
Charges of sexual assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was charged with allegedly having sexually groped two females, and possibly more, over a period of several weeks. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic psychiatrist to assess the client, and after careful review of the evidence and the assessment, Joseph Neuberger negotiated a mental health diversion as the client was suffering from a disorder that impacted his ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts. Accordingly, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.R. and D.R. (2012)
Charges of mischief under $5,000.00 and assault (domestic) withdrawn on the second trial date, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. H.R. and D.R. were charged by H.R.'s former wife after a heating argument because the complainant covertly recorded private discussions between H.R. and D.R. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that the complainant had committed a criminal offence by intercepting private communications. In addition, the complainant, in her divorce action, claimed $100,000.00 for damages arising from prior alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with the family lawyer representing H.R. and obtained the transcript of an examination on the divorce action. As a result, the defence was able to establish material inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the complainant. Further, expert psychiatric evidence obtained by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger demonstrated that the complainant was acting in a highly provocative manner prior to and during her recording of the private discussion in an attempt to provoke a confrontation for the purposes of her laying charges. As a result of the damaged credibility of the complainant, the Crown withdrew all charges just prior to the commencement of the trial.

Regina v. Y.I.K. (2012)
Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic), Assault with a Weapon and Fail to Comply x 2 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial meetings. The client was charged by his ex-wife and oldest son with a series of assault related offences and was alleged to have breached his bail once his was released from jail on the initial set of charges. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain additional and valuable information through the family court proceedings, including Affidavit evidence that provided the basis to establish a motive to fabricate. In addition, one of the assault allegations and the fail to comply charges arose from alleged contact at an examination during a family court proceeding. Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend the proceeding, and was alleged to have spoken with and assaulted his son outside the examination room. Joseph Neuberger conducted a series of pre-trials and Judicial pre-trials and successfully convinced the Crown that any alleged breach and assault while Mr. Y.I.K. was attending the examination was not only not a crime but was evidence of a "set up" by the complainant and the son. Both the son and the complainant (ex-wife) were not required to attend the examination but Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend. Thus, by attending, the complainant and the son intended to initiate contact in order to get Mr. Y.I.K. charged with more offences. Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the family court documents and Affidavits and provided a detailed account of events that not only undermined the prosecution evidence, but also established a clear motive to fabricate. As a result, all charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. C.(C) (2012)
The client was charged with a sexual assault, and Neuberger & Partners reviewed the disclosure carefully, and had the complainant's video statement transcribed. Neuberger & Partners did a complete work-up of the file, and gave his opinion to the Crown that lack of consent could never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 months after the charge was laid the Crown Attorney agreed with & Partners and the charge was completely withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. and R.S. (2012)
Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The clients were charged with assault related offences arising from an altercation with security staff at BMO field after a soccer game. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete obtained additional statements of witnesses that undermined the facts as described by the main prosecution witnesses. In addition, the prosecution was unable to produce surveillance footage of the event that should have been preserved. As a result of evidence contradicting the main crown witnesses and the lack of an objective recoding of the alleged event, both clients signed common law peace bonds to keep the peace and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. W.M. (2012)
Charges of Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have been involved in a verbal and physical altercation with two female complainants after leaving a bar in the downtown Toronto club district. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from staff at the bar and independent witnesses who described the event differently than the complainants in their statements to police. In fact, evidence obtained by Joseph Neuberger, strongly suggested the complainants and her friends were the aggressors. After detailed pre-trial discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges if W.M. signed a common law peace bond. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.


R. v. B. P (2012)
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. After reviewing disclosure, Defence lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish to the Crown Attorney that there were a number of frailties to the prosecution's case including the possibility that this may be a case of mistaken identity. Accordingly, charges were withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial.

Regina v. P.W. (2012)
Client charged with sexual assault and sexual interference x 2, arising from an alleged inappropriate relationship with a student. The allegations encompassed a prolonged period of inappropriate contact including touching that spanned several months, including instances when away on trips with the Scouts. The client was suspended from teaching and had endured months of a lengthy investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a thorough review of all statements obtained in the criminal investigation and then conducted interviews of many potential defence witnesses that also gave extensive background information on the complainant. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, aggressively cross-examined the complainant to establish a motive to fabricate arising from P.W. firing the complainant from a part-time job and the removal of a lap top computer that the complainant wanted to keep. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain admissions from the complainant as to his own history of telling stories and lies to meet his own needs, and established clear inconsistencies on material facts. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the presiding Judge commented that there was a clear motive for the complainant to fabricate his evidence and that the complainant was not a credible witness. Following the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger, that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and that P.W. was wrongly accused. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. A. H (2012)
Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference was found Not Guilty after a five day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence Lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish, through vigorous cross-examination of the complainant, significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, undermining the credibility of the allegations. The trial judge found that the evidence of the complainant was unsafe to rely upon and A.H. was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. T. P (2012)
Client charged with Assault (X2), Assault with Weapon and Uttering Threat (X2) withdrawn at trial. After successfully arguing against the Crown's Khan Application, which sought to introduce the complainant's videotaped statement into evidence, Defence Lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2012)
Application by complaint for a section 810 restraining order/peace bond against Mr. M.S. (former husband of the complainant) due to allegations of criminal harassment and threaten bodily harm, withdrawn prior to the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant sought to restrain M.S. from any contact with her and their biological daughter who M.S. was seeking access to through the family court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the complete history of all proceedings between the parties and after careful review of the complainant's statement, drafted a detailed response to the application outlining why the allegations and the request for a restraining order was an indirect attempt to thwart M.S.'s access to his daughter. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the assigned crown attorney that the complainant was attempting to alienate M.S. from his daughter and there were no genuine allegations. Accordingly the application was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.P. (2011)
Charge of assault with a weapon (domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the 911 call and the statement of the complainant prior to the first court appearance. After detailed review of the prosecution evidence, and with extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and in the circumstances of the alleged assault, it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

R. v. J(W) (2011)

Client was facing charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after argument with wife. On trial date lawyer subpoenaed records from cell phone company casting doubt on complainant's version of events. Crown withdrew charge.

Regina v. M.D.R. (2011)

Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was charged with a bar related fight between the complainant, M.D.R. and two other persons, which resulted in the complainant sustaining a concussion, broken shoulder and various bruising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the witnesses and sought through the defence investigation statements of other independent witnesses who had viewed the altercation, as well as security video recordings from a nearby McDonald's restaurant. Based upon the defence investigation, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that M.D.R. was only acting in self-defence of himself and his two friends as the complainant had been the aggressor. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.D.S. (2011)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault withdrawn after completion of three day preliminary hearing prior to setting a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. J.S. was charged with historical allegations arising from his care of a child during a four year relationship with the child's mother. The allegations arose five years after the end of the relationship, by way of disclosure to a caregiver at a time when the child was under the care of the CAS. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation during which various records were obtained through the search of court records relating to the child complainant. Mr Neuberger found extensive details about the complainant, the mother and other information including psychological issues that would have a very significant impact on the child complainant's ability to perceive, recollect and more importantly to tell the truth. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the child complainant, the mother of the complainant and other crown witnesses which yielded material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. After the preliminary hearing, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger wrote a detailed letter to the crown analyzing the case and establishing that the crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Superior court prior to setting the date for trial.

Regina v. J.B. (2011)

Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview various witnesses who were alleged to have seen portions of the altercation between J.B. and the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain statements from the bouncers of the bar where the altercation occurred. Mr. Neuberger conducted extensive pre-trials with the assigned crown, and provided the crown with statements taken during the defence investigation along with a detailed letter drafted by Joseph Neuberger outlining the deficiencies in the crowns case, as the defence asserted J.B. acted in self-defence. Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Neuberger and the charge was withdrawn.

R. v. M.(S.) 2011

Client charged with Sexual Assault. On Preliminary Hearing date lawyer convinces Crown that the case is weak and there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Charge withdrawn.

Regina v. KYK (2011)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal on the basis that the client sign a peace bond and the complainant and the client complete 12 counselling sessions.

Regina v. X.W. and Q.Z. (2011)

Charges of assault causing bodily harm stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, after defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger were successful in arguing that the clients' rights under section 11(b) of the Charter were violated as the case took some twelve and half months to be tried. The two clients were originally charged in October of 2009 with an alleged violent assault of a neighbour. The matter came to trial in February of 2011. However, due to the shortage of Mandarin accredited interpreters, the trial which was scheduled for two days could not be completed and new dates had to be selected in order to have an accredited interpreter available for trial. Due to the inability of the Crown to provide a trial in a reasonable time with an appropriate accredited Mandarin interpreter, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a motion to stay proceedings based upon an unreasonable delay. The judge agreed with the defence motion and accordingly the charges against the two defendants were stayed.

Regina v. R.L. (2011)

Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to demonstrate to the Crown a number of serious inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant in comparison to other statements obtained through the defence investigation. Given the nature of the inconsistencies, and the defence statements, it was negotiated that R.L. sign a peace bond and the charges were accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. N.B. (2011)

Charges of Assault x 2, Threaten Death x 2, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained email and text communications from the complainant (ex-wife) to the client, N.B., pre-dating and during the time frame of the alleged offences. The content of the communications undermined a significant portion of the evidence of the complainant as to the nature of the relationship. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown significant inconsistencies in the evidence. As a result the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.K. (2011)

Client acquitted of Prowl by Night and Criminal Harassment x 2 (domestic related) after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.K. was alleged to have went on the property of his ex-wife and stalked her. The complainant also alleged a history of emotional and physical abuse. The history was relied upon by the Crown to establish the reasonable fear of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully investigated all historical allegations, in particular an allegation made by the complainant in the family court proceedings. Joseph Neuberger obtained all police occurrence reports and police notes, including evidence of two prior charges of the complainant in which the complainant resolved the charges by entering into peace bonds. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her evidence and on contradictory evidence obtained by Neuberger during the defence investigation. The defence also called evidence of two police officers to contradict the complainant. The judgment of the court found that the complainant was not a credible witness and in fact had lied in her family court affidavit. The Court went on to further find that there was no credible evidence to support the complainant's evidence of C.K. ever having been violent. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all counts.


Regina v. J.B. (2011)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to persuade the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The client entered into a peace bond and as such the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.S. (2011)

Client found not guilty of charges of Assault, Criminal Harassment x 2, Harassing phone calls, and Threaten Death x 2 after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was charged with a number of offences arising from the ending of his relationship with his spouse. The allegations included records of hundreds of phone calls and emails from S.S. that were allegedly directed at harassing the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and obtained recovery of additional email and text communications between the complainant and the client, S.S. In total there were well over 500 emails and text messages. Joseph Neuberger created three briefs of emails and text messages for cross-examination aimed at undermining the complainant's evidence that the abuse was for the entirety of the relationship and continued while the couple was ending their relationship. In addition, one email recovered showed that there was in fact an assault perpetrated by the complainant on the client at or near the time of the alleged charge of assault that S.S. was charged with. Detailed and lengthy cross-examination of the complainant over two trial days established that in fact the complainant had only provided the police emails that were favourable to her version of events. In fact the complainant did not disclose contradictory emails. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the couple argued via email and text message about almost every conceivable issue in their relationship without the complainant ever mentioning anything about any abuse. Many of the emails put to the complainant in cross-examination established that complainant held S.S. in high regard and was very thankful for his patience with her issues. As a result of the cross-examination, S.S. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. S.N. (2011)

Client found not guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault (Domestic related charges) after a 7 day jury trial in the Superior Court in Toronto. Client was alleged to have brutally assaulted and sexually assaulted his common law spouse over a period of three years. The prosecution called the complainant, the complainant's mother in relation to timely disclosure to rebut allegations of recent fabrication and a counsellor who had seen S.N. during the relationship wherein S.N. had admitted to "hitting" the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed all of the pleadings and affidavits in the family court proceeding. The complainant had made an allegation in the family court proceeding of a specific instance of child abuse that was reported to the police. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the police records including the police notes through a Freedom of Information Act application. The records specifically refuted the allegation of child abuse. In addition, certain evidence of the complainant was in contradiction to other evidence gathered through the defence investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the two main prosecution witnesses, and through cross-examination was able to establish three instances of fabrication of allegations, and establish collusion between the two prosecution witnesses. Joseph Neuberger alleged in the defence that the complainant had fabricated the allegations in order to obtain sole custody of the one child of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger delivered a detailed two hour closing to the jury and after three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts.

J.N. v. Durham Regional Police 2011

Durham Regional Police ordered to expunge record of a withdrawn domestic assault charge from their Criminal Information Request database. Neuberger & Partners appear before Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Regina v. C.J.B. (2011)

Charges of assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn on the day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of bank records and text messages supporting the defence theory that the allegations were motivated by the complainant's desire to empty the bank accounts and obtain more money from C.J.B. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.F. (2011)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after careful analysis of the evidence, and during lengthy negotiations with the Crown's office, was able to establish that the facts as disclosed by the complainant, did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to commit a sexual assault but rather were misconstrued by the complainant as to the client's intended actions. Accordingly, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.W.G. (2011)

Charges of sexual assault, indecent act, and criminal harassment x 2, withdrawn during trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After extensive review of the prosecution evidence including surveillance recordings from the locations where the acts were alleged to have occurred (TTC stations) by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and detailed cross-examination of the complainant giving rise to serious inconsistencies between the evidence and the surveillance recordings, the Crown agreed with the defence that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn on day three of the trial.

Regina v. T.B. (2011)

Client acquitted of sexual assault after two week jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. T.B., a professional, had met the complainant in 2005 and began and productive business relationship with her. On the night of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant along with two other business associates attended T.B.'s home for a dinner. During the evening all parties drank wine. The complainant and her professed boyfriend (one of the business associates) slept at T.B.'s residence due to being intoxicated. The complainant was woken the next morning by her boyfriend and found to be naked. The complainant alleged that T.B. had sexually assaulted her during the night when she was unconscious. The police took a statement from the complainant and her boyfriend, and then arrested T.B.. Sexual assault kit examination revealed DNA including semen that was found to be consistent with T.B.'s DNA profile. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had a private investigator take a statement from the remaining person who attended the dinner but was not interviewed by police. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, the complainant's boyfriend, crown experts including a toxicologist and nurse, in accordance with the defence theory that the complainant had consented to sexual contact. In addition, the defence raised a reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered a "blackout" as opposed to being unconscious. The defence was able to establish significant inconsistencies in the Crown's case, as well as establish the collusion of the complainant and her boyfriend in the content of their evidence. In closing argument to the jury, Joseph Neuberger raised significant issues regarding the lack of important evidence including failure by the police to search T.B.'s residence and the Crown's failure to tendered important forensic evidence. After 28 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. Q.P. (2011)

Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, Assault, Mischief to Property, and Break and Enter with Intent x 2 (Domestic), all withdrawn after extensive defence investigation, and judicial pre-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger arranged for calls from the ex-wife (complainant) to be recorded by the client in order to obtain evidence of her true motivations. In addition, Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed all cell phone records for the complainant and client as well as obtained all family court documents . The defence was able to establish that the complainant was motivated to fabricate criminal allegations to obtain advantage in the family court case, including seeking large support payments and unequal division of assets. The cell phone records confirmed the complainant was contacting Q.P. after a family court proceeding wherein the complainant sought a restraining order. The complainant continued to contact the client establishing that she had no fear of Q.P. Further defence investigation of evidence from alleged witnesses undermined the complainant's story. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M. (2010)

Charges of Assault with Weapon x 2 (Domestic), Mischief Over $5,000.00, Utter Death Threat, and Public Mischief (allegedly making a false statement), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted and threatened her former spouse and then falsely accused the spouse of threatening. There was extensive disclosure provided including a lengthy statement of the complainant suggesting that M.M.'s motivations were based in part in an attempt to secure control of the family construction business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively reviewed and analyzed the disclosure during the comprehensive defence investigation which included obtaining source documents from various sources, including the family law proceedings, to undermine crucial facts attested to by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant in fact fabricated the allegation of mischief, and undermined the motive argument of the complainant. Through numerous pre-trial and judicial pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger established a history of misleading evidence proffered by the complainant as against M.M. in his own effort to remove M.M. from control of the family business. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. D.M. (Y.O.) (2010)

Client was charged with assault on another student. Mr. Navarrete was retained and conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney's Office. Mr. Navarrete raised several key inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and also demonstrated that D.M. lived a very productive life as a student. Crown agreed to diversion (EJS) and charges were withdrawn after mediation was completed.

Regina v. L.M. (2010)

Client charged with a domestic assault on her husband. Before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist her with the charge and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney's Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having L.M. return to her home to live with her husband. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that she would withdraw the charge if the client completed the PARS program. Charge was ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. M.V. (2010)

Client was charged with assault, assault cause bodily harm, uttering threat and assault with a weapon for an alleged serious domestic assault that was caught partly on video. On day of trial, witness did not attend, but Crown secured an adjournment. Mr. Navarrete then filed a Notice of Application for a Stay for violation of section 11(b) on the continuing trial date. After reviewing the case, the Crown agreed that 11(b) was in issue, withdrew the charges and client then entered into a peace bond.

R. v. L. H. (2010)

Client charged with assault peace officer (X2) after a night of drinking in downtown Toronto. Mr. Navarrete was retained on this matter and immediately reviewed the Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete wrote to the Crown and raised several concerns he had with delay, the disclosure and police evidence. Mr. Navarrete also recommended a resolution by way of a peace bond. Crown reviewed the case and agreed to Mr. Navarrete's request. Charges were ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. L.S. (2010)

Client was charged with assault on a family member in Toronto. Matter was set down for trial. Mr. Navarrete filed various Charter applications in defence of his client. After the Crown reviewed the case and the applications, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond.

Regina v. L.M. (2010)

Client charged with a sexual assault at his place of employment involving a customer. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges. Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney's Office to discuss various legal issues surrounding the charge, facts and the client's previous exemplary life. After which, the Crown agreed to withdraw the sexual assault charge and the client entered into a peace bond.

R. v. L.D. (2010)

Charges of breach of recognizance stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. On the morning of trial, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown's case against L.D. despite the fact that the complainant was insistent on proceeding with the case. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.

R. v. P. D. (2010)

Client acquitted on charges of breach of recognizance (X3) stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. During the trial, Mr. Navarrete vigorously cross examined the complainant on her allegations and had her admit that she forgot very important and serious details. Ultimately, the presiding Judge did not find her evidence reliable or credible to warrant a conviction.

R. v. D.G. (2010)

Charges of domestic assault was withdrawn at the early stages of the criminal proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney's Office and was able to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown's case. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney's Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.G. return to his home with his partner. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that the charges would be withdrawn upon completion of PARS and that the client would enter a peace bond. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.

Regina v. D.M. (2010)

Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference after a three day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Belleville. The client was charged after having met the complainant through an internet chat site. The complainant had mislead D.M. about her real age. Police were called by the parents of the complainant when she failed to return home after a walk. When the police found the complainant in the company of D.M., the police conducted an investigation into the complainant's activities with D.M. and as a result charges were laid. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols worked carefully through three detailed statements by the complainant, volumes of text message and internet chat logs, and a large volume of disclosure including forensic and crime scene pictures, videos and reports. The defence brought several motions at trial to exclude various pieces of the prosecution's evidence, including a re-enactment video, and the evidence of three witnesses who were called to provide age recognition evidence. In addition Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger assailed photographs taken of the complainant several hours after the meeting with D.M. which were tendered by the Crown to establish that given the complainant's youthful appearance, D.M. failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the true age of the complainant pursuant to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols successfully argued that the police had failed to protect the continuity of the complainant's appearance sufficiently, resulting in pictures that were not representative of the complainant's appearance earlier in the evening when she met with D.M. The defence further argued that given the content of the text and internet chats, as well as the evidence of the complainant, there was ample evidence to support a defence of honest but mistaken belief of age, wherein D.M. had indeed taken all reasonable steps. There were unusual and unique facts that the defence was able to present to successfully challenge the prosecution's case and as a result D.M. was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. G.B. (2010)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained an computer expert to recover deleted data and emails from the complainant, establishing a strong motive to fabricate an allegation of assault in order to gain an advantage in the family court proceedings. As a result of the defence investigation, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.Z. (2010)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and forcible confinement, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, prior to trial. Based upon the defence investigation, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of all three charges, particularly in light of inconsistencies between the complainant's statement and emails sent between the parties at the time of the alleged offences.

Regina v. A.H. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, prior to trial. The client was charged with a sexual assault in relation to his sister-in-law. The allegations were only disclosed to police several months after the alleged assault. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through the defence investigation that the reporting of the allegation coincided with a particular argument in the family, resulting in the client's wife and sister, the complainant, becoming estranged. As a result of additional inconsistencies undermining the credibility of the complainant, and the concern regarding the veracity of the compliant, the charges were withdrawn prior to the trial date.

Regina v. A.B. (2010)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Assault x 4 (Domestic) and Fail to Comply with Bail Recognizance x 3, were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, just prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted several extensive judicial pre-trials in order to set out the basis of the defence, in particular securing evidence establishing that the main charges were part of an elaborate scheme in which fabricated allegations were used to secure exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and to gain an advantage in Family court. Joseph Neuberger established a number of inconsistencies that significantly undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result of extensive defence work, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Gilbert (2010)

Client of acquitted of domestic assault after lengthy cross-examination of the Complainant and other witnesses revealed material inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.


Regina v. J.H. (2010)

Charge of assault bodily harm (domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the complainant had been the party to initiate a fist fight with J.H. As a result, J.H. reacted in self-defence in repelling the attack. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn at trial.

Regina v. T.G. (2010)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged an assault just prior to the commencement of a family court motion in which the accused, T.G., sought custody and access to their son. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain information related to charges that the complainant was facing along with a large volume of family court documents that demonstrated several material inconsistencies in the complainant's story. In addition, the case took 16 months to come to trial. As a result, a defence application motion was filed by Mr. Neuberger to stay the proceedings for delay contrary to section 11(b) of the Charter, which protects the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In light of the strong defence application for a stay and the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. T.H. (2010)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Mischief Under withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the allegation of assault was in fact the client repelling the complainant when she had initially assaulted him. The evidence of the complainant was ambiguous on the actual sequence of the alleged assault and after careful analysis of the statement, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that given the client's defensive actions, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.C. (2010)

Charges of criminal harassment, harassing phone calls, assault and forcible confinement (domestic), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and received numerous email and text communications between the complainant and the client. In addition a defence investigation into the complainant's face book site yielded information that combined with the information from the email and text messages undermined the complainant's evidence. In addition, careful legal analysis of the facts underlying the charges, supported Joseph Neuberger's position that many of the complained actions were possibly uncomfortable for the complainant, but understandable given the relationship and most importantly were not criminal. The client, being a military police officer, had also explained much of the alleged behaviour consistent with the defence position. After extensive written argument to the crown, the crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. Faqiryar (2010)

Client acquitted of assault after cross-examination of the Complainant by defence counsel Stacey Nichols revealed major inconsistencies in the identification evidence. The Trial Judge found that there was no evidence that the Accused was the actual culprit and dismissed the charge.

Regina v. J.P. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial meetings with the Crown and police. The client was alleged to have been involved in a human trafficking ring and to have sexually assaulted a female complainant, who had come over from Mexico, during the course of a four day trip through northern Ontario. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger transcribed all witness statements and created a detailed chart of all inconsistencies, as well as having drafted detailed disclosure requests seeking various critical pieces of information that were alleged to have been provided by the complainant. In particular, the complainant had made a refugee claim with one of the reasons to remain in Canada as being the victimization arising from the alleged sexual assault. A will-say was prepared by the lawyer acting on the immigration case for the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger relentlessly pursued the disclosure of this will-say and argued that the basis of the case was a fabricated allegation to allow the complainant to remain in Canada. A detailed written argument with source documents supporting the defence position was prepared by Joseph Neuberger and submitted to the Crown for their assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown accepted the argument and position put forth by Joseph Neuberger and as a result the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.T. (2010)

charges of domestic assault and mischief to property were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was alleged to have assaulted his wife after an argument regarding his suspicions of infidelity and then destroyed some of her personal belongings. While returning to Toronto from a business trip, the client was arrested and held for a bail hearing. After his release from custody, various bail variations were sought by the defence to allow the client greater freedom to reconstruct his life. The statement of the complainant, once analyzed by the defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, yielded a wide range of evidentiary areas for cross-examination. During extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown prosecutor, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish sufficient doubt regarding the credibility of the complainant's version of events, that the charges were withdrawn in favour of a section 810 peace bond.

Regina v. V.W. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault x 3, Forcible Confinement x 3, Assault x 3, Assault with a Weapon x 3, and Sexual Exploitation x 3, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was charged with numerous allegations involving BDSM activities with his former spouse. The complainant alleged that she had never consented to such activities and was essentially held captive by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded, in-person, conversations between the client and his wife, that were then transcribed and detailed in chart format contradicting the facts alleged by the complainant. In addition, after extensive technical investigation, the defence was also able to recover several text and emails between the client and the complainant prior to their marriage confirming her interest in marrying someone who was interested in BDSM play, and evidencing, not only her desire, but willingness to purchase equipment to enjoy such play. Additional defence investigation revealed a financial motive for the complainant to allege criminal allegations of sexual assault in order to obtain a financial payoff. In light of all of the evidence gathered by Joseph Neuberger, and then presented over the course of several meetings and judicial pre-trials, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, and accordingly all charges were withdrawn.


Regina v. A. B. (2010)

Client was charged with Sexual Assault x 7, Sexual Interference x 7, Sexual Exploitation, and Invitation to Sexual Touching. All charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was originally charged with two counts of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference, and released after a contentious bail hearing. The client was then arrested again after further statements were provided by the complainants, resulting in numerous additional sexual related charges. The client was released on bail after a lengthy second bail hearing. Over the course of several months, the defence carefully analyzed the numerous statements provided by the complainants, and compared the evidence against numerous emails and text messages sent by the complainants. There were extensive communications that once compared with the evidence of the complainants, undermined their evidence and supported the defence in the case. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed email communications and then requested a re-interview of the complainants by a different police officer. After further statements were taken, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainants had fabricated much of their evidence. This fatally impaired the prosecution and resulted in all charges being withdrawn.

Regina v. C.J.B. (2010)

Client was charged with sexual assault x 2, and sexual interference x 2. Charges were withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive defence discussions with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger transcribed all video statements provided by the prosecution and carefully analyzed, and broke down each statement in chart form to establish inconsistencies that ultimately undermined the evidence for the prosecution, thereby resulting in the withdrawal of the charges.

Regina vs. S.(S.) (2010)

Client acquitted of charges of Domestic Assault and Threatening Death after lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined Complainant revealing that actions of accused were in self-defence and also revealing faulty memory on behalf of the Complainant relating to recollection of actual threat.

Regina v. J.M. (2010)

Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault and sexual interference after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant, and Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established reliability issues with the Crown's case. Further, the defence investigation, including the use of a private investigator hired by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, produced photographs of the alleged crime scene and surrounding area, which assisted in undermining the evidence of the complainant. Finally, the client's evidence was accepted at trial. Accordingly, all charges against the client was dismissed.

Regina v. A.N. (2010)

Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 3, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to review injuries sustained by the client. The results established that the client was assaulted in a manner not consistent with the evidence of the three police officers. Further, defence interviews of various potential defence witnesses, established that the client was either wrongly identified as a person who had assaulted the police or was attacked by police without physical provocation on the part of the client. Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to take formal statements from the defence witnesses and based upon all of the defence evidence, the crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were therefore withdrawn.

Regina v. A.A. (2010)

Charges of Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer, and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive review of the evidence with the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a lawful purpose for the client's involvement with police and that the police acted in a hasty manner resulting in an unnecessary confrontation that did not involve any criminal conduct on the part of the client.

Regina v. S.V. (2010)

Client found not guilty of Assault and Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that evidence of the complainant's allegations was not admissible. In addition, evidence obtained from a recorded call from the complainant to the client's relative undermined her credibility. As such, all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. R.V. (2010)

Client found not guilty of assault, utter death threats and fail to comply (domestic), after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, successfully challenged the admissibility of the DVD recorded statement of the complainant and established a Charter violation of the client's statement to police. The complainant failed to recall key aspects of the case and the Crown sought to introduce the complainant's statement in order to prove its case. The defence was able to exclude the statement, on the basis of reliability, by proving the method of questioning by the police was deficient and not a proper translation of the complainant's evidence. Given the lack of evidence with the exclusion of the statements, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. A.T. (2010)

Client found not guilty of Assault (Domestic) after a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the extensively complaint on the 911 call, and the notes of officers regarding her utterances at the time of investigation, establishing motive to for the complainant to have fabricated the allegation. There were no visible injuries, when one would expect injuries given the statement of the complainant. Accordingly, Mr Neuberger was able to undermine the Crown's case and the client was acquitted.

Regina v. D.A. (2009)

Client charged with a domestic assault on his wife, held in custody for bail and released on a recognizance of bail. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Orangeville, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney's Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.A. return to his home with his wife and by the first court appearance, the Crown decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Thus the charges was withdrawn.

R. v. (D.)H. 2009

Neuberger & Partners defended this client on a charge of Fail to Comply with Recognizance for breaking his bail while on release for the Charge of Aggravated Assault. The Court in Milton rendered a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. T.P. (2009)

Charges of Public Mischief, Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault x 5 (Domestic), and Mischief Over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client having went to the police to complain about her boyfriend's assaultive conduct, was eventually charged by police after the police took a three hour statement from the boyfriend. The police and Crown alleged that the client intentionally made up the original allegation of assault. The client was charged with numerous assault offences, in addition to the public mischief and obstruct allegations. The boyfriend (complainant) had been in regular contact with the client by email and text messages. He continued to contact the complainant even after she was charged with the offences. He continued to call and harass her. Upon instruction by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the client began to record the calls. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all email and text messages prior to the allegations and after. In total there were over 300 email and text messages. Mr. Neuberger, along with his senior law clerk, reviewed each communication, and transcribed the telephone calls. Mr. Neuberger developed a binder of the communications, and developed a chart setting out all inconsistencies between the emails and text messages with the statement of the boyfriend/complainant. The emails and text messages, and the recorded calls, undermined the credibility of the boyfriend's statement. The chart developed by Mr. Neuberger and his senior law clerk clearly established very critical and material inconsistencies. A further chart was developed by Mr. Neuberger with "consistencies" between the email and text messages and the statement of the client/accused. On November 26, 2009, the Crown indicated on record that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because of Joseph Neuberger providing a very thorough and detailed analysis of the evidence, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.W. (2009)

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his former wife with allegedly making harassing phone calls and continuing to attend her place of employment. All of the calls were recorded by the complainant. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully transcribed and reviewed in detail each call. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all family court documents, including the Affidavits of the complainant. Mr. Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed analysis of the calls and the statement of the complainant with reference to the Family Court proceedings and Affidavits. As a result, the defence was able to establish that the client's calls were in response to provocative and aggressive actions taken by the complainant, and as such the Crown agreed that there was no crime committed. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn. The Crown commended Mr. Neuberger for his usual thorough analysis of the case, resulting in the withdrawal.

Regina v. G.C. (2009)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2, and Mischief x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established material inconsistencies between various statements made by the complainant that undermined the complainant's credibility. The defence also established to the crown that defence witnesses were able to contradict the complainant's evidence. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.D. (2009)

Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threaten Death and Mischief withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger established that a particular Crown witness was not properly subpoenaed to court and without the witness, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The inconsistencies between the complainant and the main Crown witness undermined the evidence for the Crown. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Sexual Interference x 3 withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed consideration of the evidence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the evidence was weak with inherent contradictions. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Tahir (2009)

Client found not guilty of Threaten Death x 2, Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was alleged, after having found his girlfriend with another man, to have threatened and assaulted his girlfriend and then threatened the other male. The client was also alleged to have grabbed a knife and acted in a threatening manner with the knife. After thorough cross-examination of the Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger and credible evidence given by the client, all charges were dismissed by the trial judge.

Regina v. A.K. (2009)

Charges of Assault x 3 (domestic) were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown regarding the vagueness of the statement of the complainant. Based upon defence material provided by Joseph Neuberger the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. G.S. (2009)

Client acquitted of sexual assault charge in the Ontario Court of Justice. The allegation involved sexual contact over a four hour period with an employee in a store. All sexual contact was alleged to have occurred in a back room with no surveillance cameras. The defence sought production of four hours of surveillance for the cameras in the store. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the DVD surveillance recordings producing a detailed frame by frame and second by second chart outlining all actions of the client and the complainant. Through detailed examination, the defence was able to establish that the actions of the complainant did not match her story and all timing and details as provided by the complainant were contradicted by the recorded surveillance. As such, the client was found not guilty of the charge.

Regina v. B.M. (2009)

Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Utter Death Threats, and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the inconsistencies in the statements of the Crown witnesses were extremely difficult to overcome. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G. (2009)

Uttering threats charge in Halifax

Neuberger & Partners appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia Court with client on Uttering Threats Charge, which was withdrawn as trial was to commence.

Regina v. A.M. (2009)

Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation. The complainant and the client were known to each other only through the accused provision of transportation services for the complainant. The complainant alleged that Mr. A.M. had sexually assaulted her during transport one morning. Detailed defence investigation about the timing of the alleged sexual assault established that during the time frame that the complainant stated the sexual assault occurred, A.M. never drove the complainant in the mornings. Records obtained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger undermined the timing of the allegations. Other detailed defence preparation established material inconsistencies in the complainant's identification of A.M. Accordingly, A.M. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. J.Y. (2009)

Client acquitted of Intimidation x 3, Criminal Harassment x 3, Utter Death Treats, and Assault (Domestic) after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant with the use of prior statements, including birthday cards, Valentine's Day cards and other related writings, resulted in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of four hours yielding numerous inconsistencies and successfully developed the defence. As a result the client was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. V.I. (2009)

Charges of assault and assault bodily harm withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial as a result of the defence investigation producing contradictory evidence to the complainant's versions of events, including obtaining an expert dental report establishing that the alleged injury could not have been caused by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained detailed statement from a witness that again undermined the evidence of the complainant. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.A. (2009)

Charges of criminal harassment and assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed defence investigation establishing that the complainant fabricated the allegations.

Regina v. H.D. (2009)

Charges of Domestic assault x 6, Assault and Fail to Comply with bail x 4 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial defence disclosure and discussions with the Crown Attorney. The prosecution evidence alleged that the client, during the course of committing an assault on his wife, also self-inflicted head and facials injuries (on himself) for which he sought to blame one of the complainant's witnesses as the perpetrator. The investigating police officers viewed the injuries to H.D. (Client) and determined that they were self-inflicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger commenced an investigation into the reasons for the complainant to fabricate the allegations. Joseph Neuberger retained three medical experts and obtained opinion evidence that the injuries sustained by his client were not self-inflicted. As well the injury sustained by the complainant was not consistent with her description of how she stated that she was assaulted. In addition the defence obtained defence witness statements undermining the stories of the Crown witnesses. All defence evidence was presented in a defence forensic binder put together by Joseph Neuberger. The defence evidence compelled a determination that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as against H.D. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. O.G. (2009)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted defence investigation yielding two defence witness statements that undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)

Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial pursuant to negotiation with Crown regarding the reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Hoyte (2009)

Client acquitted of Domestic Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to comprehensive cross-examination of Complainant and detailed presentation of defence evidence.

Regina v. Page-Cole (2008)

Charges of Aggravated Assault withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed presentation of evidence undermining the evidence of the main Crown witness.

Regina v. M.R. (2008)

Charges of assault police officer x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after directed challenge to the force used in apprehending the client.

Regina v. Pealow (2008)

Client found not guilty of a charge of utter death threat (domestic) in the Ontario Court of Justice after two day trial. The Crown conceded a verdict of not guilty after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger completed his cross-examination of the complainant.

Regina v. V.D. (2008)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a five day jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the Crown witnesses arising from extensive preparation proved effective in undermining the credibility of the complainant and the supporting Crown witness. A strong jury closing resulted in a jury verdict of not guilty within 1 hour 20 minutes of the jury deliberating.

Regina v. Rohani (2008)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively pursued defence investigation on fabrication by the complainant. Crown withdrew as they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. L.D. (2008)

Domestic charges withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to pressure by defence lawyer Ms. Stacey Nichols to assess the Crown's reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Williams (2008)

Client found not guilty of possession of a loaded handgun and carry concealed weapon after a two week jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court. our Defence lawyer advanced a duress argument, such that the client held the weapon under threat of death. After careful and detailed cross-examination of crown witnesses, which supported the behaviour of the client at the time of investigation and arrest consistent with someone who might have been frightened by a threat of harm, and a strong jury closing, the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. Graham (2008)

Charges of domestic assault and fail to comply withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued successfully a Charter violation of the client's right to be tried within a reasonable time. Aggressive pursuit of full disclosure and setting a trial date established that the defence was seeking the earliest possible trial date. The delay of 11.5 months, and consequently the charges were withdrawn

Regina v. D.J. (2008)

Client acquitted of Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement, Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy to Commit Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to skillful cross-examination of witnesses and legal argument by Ms. Stacey Nichols which revealed that Crown case did not meet required standard for conviction.

Regina v. Thomas (2008)

Client acquitted of domestic assault at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice following cross-examination of the complaint demonstrating numerous instances of inconsistencies in the complainant's version of the allegations and a complete lack of evidence of an assault.

Regina v. M.S. (2008)

Client found not guilty of domestic assault after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger focused on instances of past aggressive behaviour by the complainant including previously biting the client and implausible and exaggerated aspects of her evidence.

Regina v. Meek (2008)

Charges of domestic assault x 3 and fail to appear withdrawn prior to trial after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established lack of credibility of the complainant's allegations.

Regina v. S.M. (2008)

Charges of Robbery x 2 and Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger negotiated withdrawal of all charges based on inconsistencies in the evidence of Crown witnesses.

Regina v. De Karic (2008)

Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and assault bodily harm in the Ontario Court of Justice after aggressive defence by Joseph Neuberger including careful attention to the set date phase of the proceedings and the lack of evidence to substantiate the charge.

Regina v. Szymanski (2007)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault discharged at the Preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive and detailed cross-examination of the Crown witnesses including undermining the credibility of the complainant, and establishing that the complainant had motive to fabricate.

Regina v. C.S. (2007)
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger established that accused was assaulted first and sustained injury caused by the complainant.

Regina v. K.R. (2007)

Charges of Assault with Weapon and Assault withdrawn prior to trial, based upon defence establishing credibility problems with the Crown's case.

Regina v. Kovachev (2007)

The client was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault and sexual interference. Four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Campling. Client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Johnston (2007)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and careless storage of ammunition withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after defence investigation into complainant's attempts to extort a financial settlement in the Family law proceedings. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained the services of a private investigator and obtained statements and a recording of voice message left that seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the domestic assault and threatening allegations were withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. A.S. (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant undermined the reliability of the evidence of the complainant. The trial judge accepted defence counsel Joseph Neuberger's submissions on the lack of plausibility of the various allegations. Accordingly, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Hassen (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury after counsel's thorough cross-examination of complainant revealed contradictions and inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.

Regina v. P.M. (2007)

After trial, client found not guilty of domestic assault charges arising from York Regional Police investigation in Newmarket.

Regina v. W.W. (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault x 2, sexual interference x 2, arising from historical sexual assault allegations in the Superior Court of Justice after a three day trial. At the preliminary hearing, detailed and comprehensive cross-examination produced transcripts of evidence that provided fruitful support for the defence theory at trial. During the Superior Court trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger relentlessly cross-examined both complainants on all aspects of their evidence including inconsistencies generated by the transcripts from the preliminary hearing and video taped statements. Through cross-examination the defence theory was put to each witness. At the end of the cross-examination of both complainants, the Crown conceded that there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction and directed the court to dismiss all four charges.

Regina v. D.V. (2007)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Gang Sexual Assault stayed at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. Relentless defence requests by Joseph Neuberger for detailed disclosure, and comprehensive examination of the Crown evidence resulted in the Crown being delayed in providing the case to the defence. By the time of the preliminary hearing, with the significant delay, inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence and the use of forensic evidence supporting the client's denial of the allegations resulted in the charges being stayed.

Regina v. R.M. (2007)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Cross- examination of the complainant developed the defence theory that all actions alleged were consensual. Further, cross-examination established numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant as compared to her DVD statement. Consequently, the Justice found the client not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.T. (2007)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn after successful mistrial application sought by Joseph Neuberger in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. Sibte (2007)

Client acquitted of sexual assault charge after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed cross examination by Joseph Neuberger undermined the reliability of the complainant's allegations resulting in a finding of not guilty

Regina v. I.D. (2007)

Charges of utter death threats x 2, and assault (Domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence analysis of the statements of witnesses and the complainants establishing that the allegations could not have occurred. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M(L) (2006)

Charges of Robbery withdrawn by Crown Attorney after counsel successfully argues that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction due to identity issues.

Regina v. Young (2006)

Client acquitted of criminal harassment after thorough cross-examination of Complainant. Judge agrees pursuant to counsel's submissions that offence of criminal harassment not made out.

Regina v. Ahmad (2006)

Five charges of sexual assault dismissed after defence cross-examination of the Complainant pinpointing numerous inconsistencies in the evidence.

Regina v. Tuitt (2006)

Charges of Threatening and Fail to Comply with Recognizance withdrawn by Crown Attorney after Defence points out difficulties with the anticipated evidence and problems with the charging documents.

Regina v. D.S. (2006)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault and assault after 3-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after detailed and vigorous cross-examination of all Crown witnesses, including the complainant and her witnesses. Extensive preparation of the client also assisted in the client being believed by the Judge and based upon the credibility issues of the complainant and her witnesses, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Simpson (2006)

Charges of Assault x 4 (Domestic), Threaten Death and Fail to Comply all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence investigation disclosing numerous inconsistencies in complainant's evidence and fabrication of other allegations.

Regina v. Zamkovoj (2006)

Two counts of assault, one count of threatening death and one count of breached probation withdrawn after Complainant does not attend court and Crown asks for adjournment to secure her attendance. Counsel presented recanting statement taken from Complainant by private investigator, forming basis for Judge not granting adjournment and reason why charges ultimately withdrawn.

Back to Recent Successes